Grammatical Processing without Semantics? An Event-related Brain Potential Study of Preschoolers using Jabberwocky Sentences

Juan Silva-Pereyra1,2, Barbara T. Conboy1, Lindsay Klarman1, and Patricia K. Kuhl1

Abstract & Behavioral studies have demonstrated that children devel- syntactically anomalous real sentences elicited two positive ERP op a nearly adult-like grammar between 36 and 42 months, but effects: left-distributed effects from 500 to 750 msec and 1050 few studies have addressed how the child’s brain processes to 1300 msec, whereas syntactically anomalous jabberwocky semantic versus syntactic information. In previous research, sentences elicited two negative ERP effects: a left-distributed Silva-Pereyra and colleagues showed that distinct event-related effect from 750 to 900 msec and a later broadly distributed potentials (ERPs) are elicited by semantic and syntactic vio- effect from 950 to 1150 msec. The results indicate that when lations in sentences in children as young as 30, 36, and preschoolers process real English sentences, ERPs resembling 48 months, following the patterns displayed by adults. In the the positive effects previously reported for adults are noted, current study, we examined ERPs to syntactic phrase structure although at longer latencies and with broader scalp distribu- violations in real and jabberwocky sentences in 36-month-old tions. However, when preschoolers process jabberwocky sen- children. Jabberwocky sentences are sentences in which con- tences with altered lexical–semantic content, a negative-going tent (open-class) words are replaced by pseudowords while ERP component similar to one typically associated with the function (closed-class) words are retained. Results showed that extraction of meaning is noted. &

INTRODUCTION populations of neurons underlying different aspects of One important and widely used psychophysiological ap- processing. The ERP component most commonly asso- proach for studying language processing is the recording ciated with the processing of semantic information in of event-related brain potentials (ERPs). These are aver- sentences is the N400 component (Kutas & Hillyard, ages of cortical electrical activity time-locked to some 1980). This is a negative wave that occurs between 250 external or internal event. ERP components are classified and 500 msec after stimulus onset, peaks around according to their polarity (i.e., positive or negative deflec- 400 msec, and typically has a larger amplitude over right tions in the waveform), the time of their onset-to-offset or posterior sites (Kutas & Van Petten, 1994). The ampli- peak amplitude in milliseconds, and their topographical tude of the N400 to a particular word is highly sensitive distribution across the scalp. ERP studies have provided to the immediate context in which it occurs, whether crucial information, with an exquisite time resolution, the context is a single word, a sentence, or discourse about language processing in infants and young children (Kutas & Federmeier, 2000). ERP studies of adults pro- (for reviews, see Friederici, 2005; Mills, Conboy, & Paton, cessing grammatical anomalies in sentences have dis- 2005; Kuhl, 2004). ERPs are ideally suited for studying played an early left anterior negativity (ELAN) or left how different aspects of language processing systems are anterior negativity (LAN), a more centrally distributed established in young children, and to what extent they negativity, and a late parietally distributed positivity resemble well-established systems in adults. (called P600). ELAN is a negative wave occurring be- tween 150 and 250 msec that is sensitive to word category (phrase structure) violations, whereas LAN is Sentence Processing Studies of Adults a component peaking between 300 and 500 msec elic- Adult studies of sentence processing have indicated that ited by word category as well as morphosyntactic viola- different ERP components reflect the involvement of tions, such as violation of agreement (Gunter, Friederici, & Schriefers, 2000). Both components are observed in- 1University of Washington, 2Universidad Nacional Auto´noma de dependently of semantic constraints (Friederici, Hahne, Me´xico, Mexico & Mecklinger, 1996; Mu¨nte & Heinze, 1994).1 The P600 is

D 2007 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 19:6, pp. 1050–1065 a positive wave with a long latency, beginning around as a P600 elicited by ambiguity resolution (i.e., ‘‘The 500 msec and lasting several hundred milliseconds, that horse raced past the barn fell’’) represents a ‘‘reanalysis is largest over centro-parietal regions. The P600 has been process’’ that occurs when the initial syntactic structure found to occur with several types of morphosyntactic does not map onto the thematic structure (Friederici, violations (Morris & Holcomb, 2005; Friederici & Kotz, Hahne, & Saddy, 2002). The P600 has also been claimed 2003; Friederici, 2002; Hagoort, Brown, & Osterhout, to reflect the inability of the syntactic parser to assign the 1999; Osterhout, McLaughlin, & Bersick, 1997). For ex- preferred structure to incoming words (Hagoort, Brown, ample, in the anomalous sentence, ‘‘The cats won’t & Groothusen, 1993). EATING the fish,’’ the word EATING elicits a larger Alternative psycholinguistic models propose that sen- P600 amplitude than the word EAT in ‘‘The cats won’t tence processing relies on the interaction between all EAT the fish’’ (Osterhout & Holcomb, 1995). In addition, relevant sources of information, at the pragmatic, seman- negativities in the 200–500 msec range, but more centrally tic, phonological, morphological, and syntactic levels (e.g., distributed than the E/LAN, have been observed in adults Elman, Hare, & McRae, 2005; MacDonald, Pearlmutter, & to sentences that are anomalous in inflectional morphol- Seidenberg, 1994; Bates & MacWhinney, 1989; Marslen- ogy (e.g., Morris & Holcomb, 2005; Coulson, King, & Wilson & Tyler, 1980). These interactive or constraint- Kutas, 1998; Mu¨nte & Heinze, 1994; Friederici, Pfeifer, & satisfaction models reject the idea that purely structural Hanhe, 1993; Kutas & Hillyard, 1983). information necessarily has temporal priority over seman- tic information. Instead, lexical–semantic and morphosyn- tactic cues are believed to be examined and weighed Models of Sentence Processing together throughout the course of sentence processing, The timing, polarity, and distribution of ERP effects elic- leading to the best possible mapping between form and ited by semantic and syntactic violations have been in- meaning. Importantly, such views emphasize the roles terpreted within both serial and interactive models of that the input frequency of particular sentence construc- sentence processing. Serial models assume that distinct, tions and validity of certain linguistic cues play in con- dissociable mechanisms underlie the processing of syn- straining sentence interpretation, along with real-world tactic and semantic information, and are activated at knowledge. For example, on-line sentence processing different points in processing (e.g., Frazier, 1987). The studies of English-speaking adults (Ferreira, 2003; Bates, computation of an initial syntactic structure is believed Devescovi, & Wulfeck, 2001; Bates & MacWhinney, 1989; to precede semantic binding operations because struc- MacWhinney & Bates, 1989) have shown a preference for tural information is necessary as input for thematic role canonical subject–verb–object (SVO) sentence interpreta- assignment. A structure is initially assigned by the syn- tions. In other languages with more flexible word order, tactic module exclusively on the basis of syntactic prin- adults tend to rely on other morphosyntactic cues such ciples, and this information is subsequently passed to as subject–verb agreement and semantic cues such as the semantic module for evaluation. The semantic mod- animacy (Bates et al., 2001; MacWhinney & Bates, 1989). ule can reject the initial structure, resulting in the sub- The SVO word order is such a valid, reliable cue in English sequent assignment of an alternative structure, as in that, in some cases, it can lead to implausible sentence the case of temporarily ambiguous sentences (Frazier, interpretations (Ferreira, 2003; MacWhinney, Bates, & 1987). Thus, these models assume that there are distinct Kliegl, 1984). In a strong SVO language such as English, syntactic and semantic processing mechanisms, and in- comprehenders may initially rely on a basic ‘‘NVN/agent– teractions between different types of information take patient’’ heuristic strategy that assumes the subject of a place at a later stage in sentence processing (e.g., sentence is the agent and the object is the patient, leading Friederici, 2002; Frazier, 1995, 1998). to a ‘‘shallow’’ form of initial processing that does not take One such serial model has been proposed to ac- other syntactic information into account, although given count for the time course of ELAN, LAN, and P600 ef- enough time, a more complete form of processing can be fects, as well as results from previous behavioral studies. accomplished using syntactic algorithms (Ferreira, 2003). Friederici’s (1995, 2002) three-phase neurolinguistic Sentences are processed more easily when they conform model of sentence comprehension includes an initial to canonical word order, that is, the word order and syntactic analysis based on word category information, semantic cues converge to yield a single interpretation, followed by processing of lexically bound semantic and rather than opposing interpretations. Other basic heuris- morphosyntactic information for achieving thematic tics emphasizing semantic and/or plausibility information role assignment, and finally, integration of the initial may also be used in sentence processing (Ferreira, 2003). syntactic structure with the subsequent morphosyntactic Interactive views of language have been supported and lexical–semantic information. According to this mod- by ERP studies that show immediate semantic analysis/ el, the ELAN or LAN component evoked by a syntactic integration effects in sentence processing, challenging violation reflects the initial syntactic analysis and detec- the notion that automatic syntactic processes always op- tion of errors, and the P600 component evoked by a erate prior to semantic processes or in an encapsulated syntactic violation represents a ‘‘repair process,’’ where- manner (see Kutas, Van Petten, & Kluender, 2006).

Silva-Pereyra et al. 1051 Moreover, when adults process certain types of anoma- processing factors (Reyes & Herna´ndez, 2006; Dick, lous sentences which can be construed as either seman- Wulfeck, Krupa-Kwiatkowski, & Bates, 2004; Thal & tically or syntactically anomalous, semantics appear to Flores, 2001; Bates et al., 1984). For example, the SVO guide the initial syntactic analysis of sentences, rather preference has been noted for children learning other than the other way around (Kim & Osterhout, 2005). languages with more variable word order such as French The interactive school of thought also considers that the (Kail & Charvillat, 1988), German (Lindner, 2003), Italian components and effects noted to syntactic anomalies in (Devescovi, D’Amico, Smith, Mimica, & Bates, 1998), and sentences may reflect more general cognitive processes, Spanish (Reyes & Herna´ndez, 2006), despite the fact rather than the operation of specific linguistic modules. that this is not a preferred pattern for adult speakers of For example, the P600 effect observed to grammatically those languages and not a reliable cue to agent–patient anomalous sentences has been interpreted as part of a relations. When processing sentences, children may rely family of more general P300 (P3b) effects that reflect more on local cues such as word order because they context updating processes and/or responses to low are computationally easier to process than distributed/ probability target events (see Kutas et al., 2006; Coulson topological cues such as subject–verb agreement and et al., 1998). The LAN has also been interpreted as other morphological cues (Dick et al., 2004; Thal & reflecting general working memory processes rather Flores, 2001; Von Berger, Wulfeck, Bates, & Fink, 1996; than specific morphosyntactic processing (for review, Kail & Charvillat, 1988; Bates et al., 1984). Thus, as ex- see Kutas et al., 2006). Numerous studies have revealed perience with language is gained, and as cognitive abil- less than clearcut dissociations between semantic and ities increase, children become increasingly able to use syntactic processes indexed by the N400, E/LAN, and a variety of cues for sentence processing and rely on P600 components (Kutas et al., 2006). those that are most valid for their language.

Sentence Processing in Children ERP Sentence Processing Effects in Children Modular/serial versus interactive activation accounts of One important question that can be addressed using the sentence processing tend to align with opposing views ERP technique is whether the neural activity linked to on language development in children. Many modular sentence processing in children is similar or different approaches to language development emphasize sepa- from that noted in adults with respect to the components rate mechanisms for rule-based versus associative learn- elicited by grammatical and semantic incongruities. Few ing (e.g., Ullman, 2004; Pinker & Ullman, 2002; Pinker, previous studies have used ERPs to investigate sentence 1994, 1999; Chomsky, 1981). According to the ‘‘continu- processing in preschool-age children. Silva-Pereyra and ity’’ hypothesis, grammatical processing mechanisms are colleagues provided ERP evidence of semantic and syn- innate, although they may not function in a completely tactic processing at 30 months (Silva-Pereyra, Klarman, adult-like manner during childhood due to cognitive lim- Lin, & Kuhl, 2005) and at 36–48 months (Silva-Pereyra, itations (see Clahsen & Fesler, 2006). Experience with Rivera-Gaxiola, & Kuhl, 2005). At all three ages, children language serves to trigger innate linguistic knowledge displayed a positive effect for syntactically anomalous and the processing system becomes adult-like with mat- sentences and a negative effect for semantically anoma- uration of other cognitive mechanisms (Pinker, 1994, lous sentences, similar to the patterns reported for adults 1999). Thus, according to these views, syntactic parsing (see Kutas et al., 2006) and older children (Hahne, mechanisms are believed to be in place during early Eckstein, & Friederici, 2004). Harris (2001) conducted childhood, but operating in a less efficient manner. two studies of syntactic processing with preschool-age In contrast, according to usage-based, emergentist ac- children. In the first, 32- to 38-month-old children dis- counts of language development, experience with lan- played a bilateral positivity from 500 to 1500 msec to guage is the primary force shaping the development of phrase structure anomalies in which the direct object of basic cognitive processing mechanisms into specialized the verb was placed in preverbal position, and a negative networks for distinct aspects of language processing (see effect for semantically anomalous sentences. However, in MacWhinney, 1999; Elman et al., 1996). On this view, that study, there were differences in the word class knowledge about syntactic constructions and morpho- (open- or closed-class) of the word immediately pre- syntax emerges gradually with growth in the lexicon, ceding the target in the syntactically anomalous versus applying first to specific lexical items and later becom- control sentences, possibly leading to unequal baselines ing abstract through generalization to other items in the two conditions. In the second study, a different (Goldberg, Casenhiser, & Sethuraman, 2004; Lieven, group of 36- to 39-month-old children showed a bilateral Behrens, Speares, & Tomasello, 2003; Savage, Lieven, negativity from 300 to 600 msec to phrase structure Theakston, & Tomasello, 2003; Tomasello, 2000, 2003; anomalies in which a closed-class word was inserted Bates & Goodman, 1999; Lieven, Pine, & Baldwin, 1997). before the final noun phrase (NP). The differences across From this perspective, sentence interpretation strategies these studies are likely due to the different sentence are influenced by previous learning as well as ease of types and the way in which the stimuli were presented

1052 Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience Volume 19, Number 6 (segmented speech in the former study, natural contin- ent. On the contrary, Hahne and Jescheniak (2001) uous speech in the latter). Another recent study inves- observed both a LAN and a P600 effect for real and tigating the processing of phrase-structure violations in jabberwocky sentences in adults. They suggested that 32-month-olds demonstrated a left hemispheric negativity the LAN effect reflected an initial parsing stage during around 500 msec and a late P600 (Oberecker, Friedrich, & which phrase structure information was processed, Friederici, 2005). A more recent study has also shown whereas the P600 reflected a repair process in which a late P600, but no negative effect, in 24-month-olds syntactic information was evaluated later in sentence (Oberecker & Friederici, 2006). The left lateralization of processing and not based upon the semantics of the the negative effect in these studies has led to the inter- sentence. Based on these contradictory findings across pretation of this effect as a child precursor to the E/LAN studies, Hahne and Jescheniak proposed an explana- observed in adults for phrase structure violations. Both tion that relies on the time at which the semantic components, the E/LAN and the P600, started later and and syntactic processes are reflected in the ERP. Spe- persisted longer than those observed in adults. cifically, when an early negativity reflecting a purely syntactic process is present, as in their study, a P600 will also be noted because the process underlying the negativity will prevent detailed lexical–semantic process- The ‘‘Jabberwocky’’ Sentence ing of the syntactically anomalous item, and the P600 Processing Paradigm analysis process will ensue. In contrast, when the early One approach for investigating the coordination of negativity is absent, the syntactic error will be processed semantic and syntactic processes during sentence com- slightly later and at the same time as the semantic error, prehension is to analyze the processing of sentences and this will block a subsequent P600 effect. In other that are syntactically intact but have greatly reduced words, the negativity noted in the studies of Canseco- lexical–semantic information, that is, jabberwocky sen- Gonzalez and Mu¨nte et al. may have been an N400 effect tences (based on the famous poem of Lewis Carroll, to the pseudowords combined with a LAN-like effect. 1872). These are sentences in which content (open- class) words are replaced by pseudowords, and function (closed-class) words and verb inflections are kept as Goals of the Present Study morphological markers (e.g., My macle platched a flovie about my garily). Such sentences can, therefore, The Jabberwocky ERP Paradigm with Children be used to test the extent to which listeners rely on In our previous ERP grammatical processing studies primarily syntactic information to build up expecta- of children (Silva-Pereyra, Klarman, et al., 2005; Silva- tions about sentence structure and to examine the Pereyra, Rivera-Gaxiola, et al., 2005), the syntactic anom- brain processes involved when violations of such expec- alies were presented in real sentences that contained tations occur. intact lexical–semantic information. Of interest is wheth- er children this age would show similar syntactic pro- cessing effects under conditions of greatly reduced Jabberwocky ERP Studies of Adults semantic content, like the adults studied by Hahne Syntactic violations of subject–verb agreement (Mu¨nte, and Jescheniak (2001), or different effects in the jabber- Matzke, & Johannes, 1997) and phrase structure (Hahne wocky condition, like the adults studied by Canseco- & Jescheniak, 2001; Canseco-Gonzalez, 2000) have been Gonzalez (2000) and Mu¨nte et al. (1997). One other investigated in ERP studies of adults using real sentences study (Harris, 2001) has provided ERP evidence of syn- and their corresponding jabberwocky sentences. These tactic processing in 36- to 39-month-old children using previous studies yielded mixed findings. Both Canseco- jabberwocky sentences. In that study, phrase structure Gonzalez (2000) and Mu¨nte et al. (1997) reported early violations in real sentences elicited a negative effect be- negative effects but not a P600 effect. Mu¨nte and col- tween 300 and 600 msec, which was larger over the left leagues concluded that it was not clear whether the than the right hemisphere, but significant only for negative effects they observed, which were maximal at children with higher language skills as determined by central electrode sites, could be classified as LAN effects. the Clinical Evaluation of Language Function—Preschool Canseco-Gonzalez also observed a negativity to ungram- (CELF-P; Wiig, Secord, & Semel, 1992). In contrast, matical pseudoword stimuli, but this effect had a broad phrase structure violations in jabberwocky sentences rather than a left-lateralized distribution, and therefore elicited a bilateral negativity from 600 to 700 msec, could not necessarily be interpreted as an ELAN or LAN. which was largest at left anterior electrode sites but According to Canseco-Gonzalez and Mu¨nte et al., the significant only for the higher language group. absence of P600 effects observed in their studies reflects In the present study, we investigated the brain activity the absence of repair or reanalysis processes; there is no of 36-month-old children as they processed syntactic reason to repair or reanalyze a sentence containing violations in real sentences, with intact lexical–semantic syntactic errors unless semantic information is also pres- information, and jabberwocky sentences, in which lexical–

Silva-Pereyra et al. 1053 semantic information was greatly reduced. Given that 0.38; range = 35.53–36.73) were included in the analy- many aspects of grammar are acquired by approxi- ses. Parents were asked about their own and their mately 3 years of age (Hirsh-Pasek & Golinkoff, 1996; child’s handedness. All children included in the analy- Brown, 1973), we predicted that children’s ERPs to ses were right-handed and had no family history of grammatically anomalous versus correct sentences left-handedness. would reflect patterns of the brain activity associated with syntactic processes. We predicted that if the positive Stimuli ERP effect previously observed to syntactic anomalies in preschoolers (Silva-Pereyra, Klarman, et al., 2005; Silva- Forty regular transitive verbs, rated as being produced Pereyra, Rivera-Gaxiola, et al., 2005) is a specialized by 98% of 30-month-old children in the MacArthur-Bates syntactic component that occurs regardless of lexical– Communicative Development Inventories (CDIs) lexical semantic information, then syntactic anomalies in jabber- database (Dale & Fenson, 1996), were used to build 80 wocky sentences should elicit similar ERPs as those in real regular past-tense sentences. Early acquired nouns, sentences, that is, a late positivity after the onset of the prepositions, pronouns, and determiners selected from word that renders the sentence ungrammatical. In con- the CDIs were also included in the sentences. All sen- trast, if the positive ERP effect previously noted to syn- tences were eight words in length and contained a prep- tactic anomalies in preschool children is modulated ositional phrase (e.g., My uncle watched a movie about by lexical–semantic information, then that ERP effect my family). Half of the real sentences were correct, should be different for jabberwocky sentences, possibly whereas the other half contained phrase structure vio- absent due to the lack of a need for sentence reanalysis, lations. The phrase structure violations were created by as noted by Canseco-Gonzalez (2000) and Mu¨nte et al. reversing the word order of the preposition and pre- (1997). Thus, by examining how this syntactic ERP com- ceding NP (e.g., *My uncle watched about a movie ponent behaves in jabberwocky sentences, we aimed to my family). tease apart the relative roles of semantic and syntactic Eighty jabberwocky sentences were constructed using information in sentence processing at an early point in 40 pseudowords that were phonologically related to the development at which grammatical development is well content words (i.e., nouns, verbs) used in the real underway. We did not expect to observe a negativity re- sentences. Pseudowords were created by extracting sembling the LAN or ELAN to either type of sentence, phoneme sequences from each content word, creating given that those ERP effects were not noted in our a matrix of different combinations, and selecting pseu- previous studies with 30- to 48-month-old children (how- dowords that were phonotactically legal for English, as ever, a LAN was reported for the 3-year-old children judged by two native English speakers who were stu- studied by Oberecker et al., 2005). dents in Speech and Hearing Sciences. Pseudowords were controlled so that they matched the real English words in syllable number and final consonant (e.g., METHODS mool–ball) (see Appendix for list of stimulus senten- ces). All of the pseudoverbs were inflected as regular Participants verbs (with the ‘‘ed’’ ending, e.g., watched–platched). Children were recruited from the Child Participant Pool Pilot behavioral testing was conducted with five native at the University of Washington. All participants were English-speaking adults in order to verify the syntactic healthy full-term 36-month-olds with monolingual En- violation point in the anomalous jabberwocky sen- glish experience and with no known hearing deficits. tences. Subjects read the sentences and indicated the Each child had no more than two mild ear infections earliest point at which each sentence sounded gram- before testing and was healthy and developing typically matically incorrect. Based on this testing, 10 sentences at the time of the study. Parents signed University of were identified that had ambiguous violation points. Washington ethics committee approved consent forms These sentences were eliminated from the analyses. and were informed of the procedures and aims of the For the remaining jabberwocky sentences, the adults study. They received $15 for their participation in the were in 100% agreement regarding the violation point. 1-hour session, and the children received a small toy. All sentences were spoken by a female native English Parents were also asked to complete a vocabulary check- speaker. The sentences were recorded on a digital-audio list composed of all the words used in the experiment; system and sampled at 44 kHz with a 16-bit resolution. if a parent did not indicate that the child knew at least The speaker rehearsed the sentences prior to recording 95% of the words on the list, the child’s data were not to ensure that they sounded natural during the record- included in the analyses. ing. The average sound pressure level of the sentences Forty-seven children completed the experiment, but ranged from 63 to 67 dB SPL. In order to ensure precise 31 children’s recordings were not used due to in- time locking of the ERP to the onset of each critical word sufficient numbers of artifact-free segments. Nineteen in the sentences, waveforms and spectrograms of the 36-month-old children (9 girls; mean age = 36.17; SD = critical words were inspected.

1054 Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience Volume 19, Number 6 ERPs were time-locked to four different critical words. International) at the following locations (according to For real sentences, the ERP was time-locked to the onset the International 10–20 system): Fp1, Fp2, F3, F4, C3, of the preposition, which rendered the sentence: (a) C4, P3, P4, O1, O2, F7, F8, T3, T4, T5, T6, Fz, Cz, and Pz. syntactically anomalous (e.g., My uncle watched ABOUT The vertical electrooculogram (VEOG) was recorded a movie my family) or (b) nonanomalous (e.g., My from an infraorbital electrode placed on the infant’s left uncle watched a movie ABOUT my family). For jabber- cheek, in order to detect eye artifact in the EEG record- wocky sentences, the ERP was time-locked to the onset ings. The recordings were referenced to the left mastoid; of the last NP, which rendered the sentence: (c) syntac- the brain electrical activity over the right mastoid was tically anomalous (e.g., My macle platched about a also recorded and did not reveal any condition-specific flovie MY GARILY ) or (d) nonanomalous (e.g., My macle variations. Electrode impedances were kept below 10 k. platched a flovie about MY GARILY ). The different The EEG signal was amplified with a gain of 20,000 by an locations of critical words across the real and jabber- Isolated Bioelectric Amplifier System Model SC-32/72BA wocky sentences were necessary because, for the jabber- (SA Instrumentation, San Diego, CA) with a bandpass of wocky sentences, the violation would not be detected 0.1 to 100 Hz, continuously sampled at 250 Hz by an until the last NP was encountered. analog-to-digital converter, and stored on a hard disk for The mean duration from the onset of nonanomalous further analysis. real sentences to the critical word (i.e., preposition) was 1374.4 msec (SD = 161.84 msec). For real sentences Data Analysis with syntactic violations, the mean duration from the on- set of the sentence to the preposition was 916.31 msec ERPs were computed off-line from 2048 msec epochs for (SD = 108.64 msec). For nonanomalous jabberwocky each subject in each experimental condition. Epochs sentences, the mean duration from the onset of the consisted of the 100 msec preceding and 1948 msec sentence to the onset of the last NP was 1887.76 msec following the presentation of each individual critical word (SD = 268.96 msec); for the jabberwocky sentences in each of the sentences. Automatic rejection of segments with syntactic violations, the mean duration from the was carried out on the basis of the following criteria: onset of the sentence to the onset of the last NP was Segments with electrical activity exceeding ±150 AVand 1941.79 (SD = 293.37 msec). Twenty additional senten- amplifier blocking for more than 200 msec at any elec- ces were included in each type of sentence condition trode site were considered artifact and the entire segment (i.e., real and jabberwocky) as filler sentences. was rejected. EEG segments from each subject were also visually inspected, and those segments with eye move- ments detected in the VEOG were rejected. Electrical Procedure activity from F7 minus F8 (used as the horizontal EOG criterion) that exceeded ±50 AV was also treated as Each child was fitted with a 20-channel electrode cap artifact, and segments containing such artifact were re- (Electrocap International, Eaton, OH) while playing with jected. Subjects with fewer than 18 artifact-free trials for a research assistant. After conductive gel was applied to each condition were excluded from the average. There each electrode site, participants and experimenters were no significant differences in the percentages of trials moved into a sound-attenuated testing booth. Inside eliminated due to artifact rejection across anomalous the booth, the impedances were measured and the child and nonanomalous real sentences [M =33.8,SD =5.7 was seated in a comfortable chair close to his or her and M =34.1,SD = 5.7, respectively; F(1, 18) = 0.049]. parent and approximately 1 m in front of a puppet Similarly, there were no significant differences in arti- theater. Participants listened passively to the stimuli fact rejection rates across anomalous and nonanomalous while watching a live puppet show. The sentences were jabberwocky sentences [M =36.2,SD =9.5andM = presented via loudspeakers mounted on the puppet 35.5, SD =9.8,respectively;F(1, 18) = 0.09]. Further fil- theater, at interstimulus intervals of 1500 msec. tering was conducted using a band-pass of 0.5 to 30 Hz. Each participant was tested in two sessions on the ERPs were re-referenced to the average right mastoid same day. Both experimental sessions lasted a total of and left mastoid reference. Baseline correction was per- approximately 1 hour, including the procedure of fitting formed using the 100-msec prestimulus time window the cap. In Session 1, 80 real sentences with and without mentioned above. syntactic violations were presented, and in Session 2, 80 A series of repeated-measures analyses of variance jabberwocky sentences were presented. The order of (ANOVAs) were performed on mean amplitude values the sessions was counterbalanced across participants. for comparisons between syntactically anomalous and nonanomalous real and jabberwocky sentences. The Huynh–Feldt correction was applied to analyses with ERP Recording more than one degree of freedom in the numerator. The electroencephalogram (EEG) was recorded from Planned comparisons were reported as significant at 20 tin electrodes secured in an elastic cap (Electrocap the .05 level.

Silva-Pereyra et al. 1055 Analyses proceeded in two stages. First, repeated- windows extended from 500 to 750 msec and the other measures ANOVAs were performed separately for each one from 1050 to 1300 msec, reflecting a larger positive sentence type (real and jabberwocky) on the ERP epoch wave to the anomalous versus nonanomalous sen- 50–1600 msec in 50-msec consecutive intervals. Sepa- tences. For jabberwocky sentences, the anomalous sen- rate sets of repeated-measures ANOVAs were conducted tences elicited a significantly larger negativity than the for the data acquired at midline and lateral sites. For nonanomalous sentences in two windows: 750–900 and the midline sites, two-way repeated-measures ANOVAs 950–1150 msec. Based on these initial analyses, these were performed with violation (nonanomalous vs. anom- longer time windows were used for the second stage of alous sentences) and electrode site (Fz, Cz, and Pz) analysis. Repeated-measures ANOVAs were performed as factors. For lateral sites, three-way repeated-measures separately for each type of sentence (real and jabber- ANOVAs were conducted with violation, hemisphere, wocky) in each time window. Again, separate analyses and electrode site (Fp1–Fp2, F3–F4, C3–C4, P3–P4, were conducted for the data acquired at midline and O1–O2, F7–F8, T3–T4, T5–T6) as factors. For the midline lateral sites. sites, the analyses revealed two significant effects: main effect of condition on real sentences at 800–850 msec [F(1, 18) = 5, p = .038] and main effect of condition on jabberwocky sentences at 1000–1050 msec [F(1, 18) = RESULTS 8.2, p = .01]. For the lateral sites, the analyses revealed Real Sentences two ranges of time for real sentences and two for jabberwocky sentences for which main effects and inter- 500–750 msec Time Window actions were significant. Results for the comparison Grand-average ERPs to the syntactically anomalous and between syntactically anomalous and nonanomalous nonanomalous real sentences at the onset of the target real and jabberwocky sentences are summarized in words are shown in Figure 1A. The anomalous sentences Table 1. For real sentences, one of the significant time elicited a larger positivity than the nonanomalous sen-

Table 1. Results of the Comparison between Syntactically Anomalous and Nonanomalous Real and Jabberwocky Sentences

F Values

Real Sentences Jabberwocky Sentences Time Windows (msec) V (1,18) df V Â H (1,18) df V Â E (a,b) df V Â E Â H (a,b) df V (1,18) df V Â H (1,18) df

500–550 (3.9, 70.4) = 2.5* 550–600 5.9* 600–650 4.8* (6.3, 112.5) = 2.2* 650–700 6.3* (6.7, 120.6) = 2.2* 700–750 (6.7, 119.8) = 2.3* 750–800 7.1* 800–850 7.2* 5.9* 850–900 5.5* 900–1000 5.1* 1000–1050 10.8** 1050–1100 7.1* (5.3, 94.9) = 2.4* 4.1* 1100–1150 10.9** (5.6, 101.1) = 3* 4.1* 1150–1200 (3.2, 57) = 2.9* 1200–1250 (4.2, 76.1) = 4.3** 1250–1300 (2.7, 48.2) = 2.9* (4.7, 84.2) = 2.8* 4.9*

V = violation; E = electrode site; H = hemisphere. *p < .05. **p < .01.

1056 Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience Volume 19, Number 6 Figure 1. This figure shows grand-average ERPs to anomalous (dotted line) and nonanomalous (solid line): (A) real sentences at the onset of the preposition, and (B) jabberwocky sentences at the onset of the second noun phrase. Negative is plotted up. In (A), a larger amplitude positive response is observed for anomalous versus nonanomalous real sentences at left hemisphere sites (P600 and a later effect at T3 from 1050 to 1300 msec). In (B), larger amplitude negative responses are observed for the syntactically anomalous jabberwocky sentences

(Na = N750–950 and Nb = N950–1150).

tences over the left hemisphere [Violation  Hemi- electrode site indicated that the larger positivity to sphere  Electrode site interaction, lateral, F(5.7, anomalous sentences was significant only at three left 103.2) = 2.5, p = .027]. Planned comparisons be- hemisphere electrode sites: F3 [F(1, 18) = 4.4, p = .05]; tween anomalous and nonanomalous sentences at each T3 [F(1, 18) = 7.1, p = .02]; and T5 [F(1, 18) = 5.7, p =

Silva-Pereyra et al. 1057 .03]. There were no effects of violation at any right the onset of the critical word (the determiner or noun in hemisphere electrode sites. the last NP), and lasting until 900 msec; the second one with a broad distribution from 950 to 1150 msec. The positive effects noted to phrase structure viola- 1050–1300 msec Time Window tions in real sentences were generally consistent with those reported for children in previous studies, albeit A larger positivity was elicited by anomalous versus with variations in latencies and scalp distributions, and nonanomalous real sentences in this time window [Vio- may be interpreted as P600-type effects. The onset of lation  Hemisphere  Electrode site interaction, lat- this positivity was similar to that reported for phrase eral, F(5.2, 93.3) = 2.6, p = .03]. Planned comparisons structure violations in the 32- to 38-month-old children between anomalous and nonanomalous sentences at studied by Harris (2001), although the scalp distribu- each electrode site indicated that the larger positivity tion of the effect was more left-lateralized in the present to anomalous sentences was significant only at T3 study. The results also showed similarities and differ- [F(1, 18) = 8.9, p = .008]. ences when compared to those reported to phrase struc- ture violations in 32-month-old children (Oberecker et al., 2005). In that study, phrase structure violations Jabberwocky Sentences elicited an early positive effect with a right-central scalp 750–900 msec Time Window distribution occurring prior to 300 msec, followed by a Grand-average ERPs to the syntactically anomalous and left-lateralized negative effect from approximately 300– nonanomalous jabberwocky sentences at the onset of the 700 msec, and a later positive effect with a right-central last NP are shown in Figure 1B. A negative-going wave is distribution occurring from 1100 to 1500 msec. Further- observed to the jabberwocky sentences after the onset of more, the results were both similar to and different from the last NP. This negative wave is more prominent for the those obtained in our previous studies of preschool-age anomalous than the nonanomalous sentences over the children using morphosyntactic violations. The first left hemisphere [Violation  Hemisphere interaction, positive effect (500–750 msec) observed in the present lateral, F(1, 18) = 8.1, p = .011]. Planned comparisons study occurred later, and was more left-lateralized, than for violation made for each hemisphere showed that the the first positive effect (300–600 msec) to morphosyn- differences were significant over the left but not the right tactic violations found in 36- and 48-month-old children hemisphere [Main effect of violation over the left hemi- (Silva-Pereyra, Rivera-Gaxiola, et al., 2005). It was also sphere: F(1, 18) = 5.3, p =.034]. more left-lateralized than the broadly distributed second positive effect (600–1000 msec) to morphosyntactic violations reported for 36- and 48-month-old children 950–1150 msec Time Window (Silva-Pereyra, Rivera-Gaxiola, et al., 2005). The longer latencies of these positive effects in the A larger negativity was noted to the anomalous versus present study could be due to the fact that the sen- nonanomalous sentences [Violation main effect, lateral, tences might not have been considered ‘‘ungrammati- F(1, 18) = 7.8, p = .012]. This effect was broadly cal’’ until after the chosen onset point (the preposition). distributed across the scalp; there were no main effects For example, the stem, ‘‘My uncle watched about ...’’ of hemisphere or interactions with hemisphere. could be completed in a grammatically well-formed sentence: ‘‘My uncle watched about five football games on Sunday.’’ Thus, the sentence structure, ‘‘My uncle watched about a movie my family’’ is temporarily am- DISCUSSION biguous at the point that the preposition ‘‘about’’ is The present study examined auditory ERP responses in encountered. However, this was not the case in most preschoolers to phrase structure violations occurring in of the sentences (see Appendix). Importantly, neither real and jabberwocky sentences (i.e., sentences in which the phrase structure violations in real sentences in the content words were replaced with pseudowords while present study nor the morphosyntactic violations in our grammatical functional words were retained). There previous studies elicited a negative effect resembling a were two important results. First, a larger positivity was LAN, in contrast to the results reported by Oberecker elicited by the anomalous versus nonanomalous real et al. (2005). sentences over left frontal, temporal, and posterior The negative effects elicited by phrase structure vio- temporal sites, beginning at 500 msec and ending at lations in jabberwocky sentences were also different 750 msec, and followed by a second, later positive effect from the negativities elicited by grammatical violations over the left temporal site. Second, two larger negativ- in other studies of young children. Both negative effects ities were elicited by anomalous versus nonanomalous observed in the present study occurred at longer laten- jabberwocky sentences, the first one with a left hemi- cies than the bilateral negativity from 600 to 700 msec sphere distribution, beginning around 750 msec after elicited by phrase structure violations in jabberwocky

1058 Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience Volume 19, Number 6 sentences reported by Harris (2001). In addition, the bedded within the sentence. Thus, the N400 amplitude negativities occurred at much longer latencies than the may reflect the semantic anomaly engendered by an un- LAN-like effects to phrase structure violations in real parsable or misparsed sentence. sentences reported by Oberecker et al. (2005). The Notably, our results and those reported by Harris longer latency of the negative effects for jabberwocky (2001), who used different types of jabberwocky stimuli sentences in the present study, compared to those with a different violation point, converge to show that a reported by Harris, might have been due to how sen- P600 is not elicited in ungrammatical sentences that tences were parsed by listeners. For example, in the have greatly reduced semantic content in children this sentence, ‘‘My macle platched about a flovie my garily,’’ age. These results are consistent with those observed in the phrase ‘‘a flovie my garily’’ could be parsed as adults, as reported by Canseco-Gonzalez (2000) and the beginning of an object relative clause, as in ‘‘My Mu¨nte et al. (1997), although they differ from those uncle talked about a movie my family was in,’’ in which reported by Hahne and Jescheniak (2001). Furthermore, case the listener would be expecting a verb in the our results show that a P600-like effect is observed in the relative clause after the pseudoword ‘‘garily’’ and would same children when processing grammatical anomalies not consider the sentence ungrammatical until that in real English sentences. point. In other cases, the pseudoverb could be inter- The results of the present study raise some interesting preted as a verb embedded in a subject relative clause. questions regarding levels of linguistic processing in For example, in ‘‘The bailgan plambed with the gree young children. First, is there any evidence that the his jeg,’’ the listener might parse this as the beginning late negativities elicited in the jabberwocky condition of a construction analogous to ‘‘The mailman plagued reflect a purely syntactic effect rather than a semantic with the flu his son gave him was in the hospital.’’ integration effect? Although it is not possible to answer In that case, the listener would be anticipating a verb this question only on the basis of our results and those right after the pseudoword ‘‘jeg.’’ In both these cases, reported by Harris (2001), the results provide some the sentences would be ambiguous until the very end, evidence that, in preschool children, semantic and at the point when the listener is waiting for a verb and syntactic processes interact during sentence processing, does not hear it. However, the alternate parsing of and syntactic structure is constructed taking semantic the anomalous jabberwocky sentences, in which the information into account. According to syntax-centered syntactic anomaly would be detected at the point of models, in which syntactic processing is believed to the final NP, is more probable, based on other litera- operate in the earliest stages of sentence processing, ture showing that children this age tend to rely on during jabberwocky sentence processing the parser canonical SVO interpretations rather than relative clause should be able to build syntactic structure even when or other interpretations (Von Berger et al., 1996; Bates semantic information is distorted, as observed by Hahne et al., 1984). and Jescheniak (2001) in their study of adults. Given An alternative explanation for the late negativities that lexical entries cannot be activated by pseudowords, observed for the processing of jabberwocky sentences the integration would be completed solely on the basis could be that they are semantic rather than purely of thematic role information and a P600-like positive syntactic effects, reflecting children’s attempts to make effect would be observed, consistent with the P600 sense of the nonsensical sentences. One important fact effects elicited by syntactic violations in real sentences. that may explain the occurrence of negative rather than Neither our study nor the study conducted by Harris positive effects is the position of the ungrammatical provides evidence for such an account. In contrast, ac- point in the sentences used in the present study. In cording to interactive models, in which linguistic in- the present study, the violation occurred later in the formation from different levels is believed to interact sentence for the jabberwocky than for the real sen- from the beginning stages of sentence processing, the tences, and this may have given listeners more time negative ERP effects elicited by jabberwocky sentences to construct possible sentence meanings. Osterhout in our study could be interpreted as reflecting the use (1997) has provided evidence that although sentence- of multiple linguistic cues throughout the course of embedded syntactically anomalous words elicit a P600- sentence processing in an effort to construct meaning. like response in adults, sentence-final anomalous words Young English learners, who have been exposed to a can elicit an enhanced negative wave or an N400-like re- large proportion of SVO sentence structures in their sponse. An interpretation of this sentence-final negativ- input, may especially rely on what Ferreira (2003) has ity is that it reflects the eventual semantic consequences described as a basic ‘‘NVN/agent–patient’’ heuristic strat- of an ungrammatical (hence, not fully interpretable) egy, and employ a ‘‘shallow’’ form of sentence pro- sentence. Because the failed parse leads to problems cessing that does not take other syntactic information at the semantic/conceptual level, the critical words elicit into account (see also Slobin, 1985). Thus, the nega- an enhanced N400 component. Furthermore, attempts tive effects elicited by syntactic violations in jabber- at reanalysis might be less common when the anomaly wocky sentences most likely reflected attempts at is in sentence-final position than when it appears em- semantic integration rather than the use of purely

Silva-Pereyra et al. 1059 syntactic information, and may have reflected the inter- after the pseudoverb based on their interpretations of action between the use of an NVN/agent–patient strat- the pseudoverbs. egy, the limited semantic information present in the Finally, it is important to consider that the negativities sentences, and whatever real-world pragmatic knowl- noted to the syntactic anomalies in jabberwocky sen- edge children this age were able to employ in the service tences may share some similarities with negative ERP of sentence interpretation. effects reported in other language processing paradigms A second interesting question raised by our results used with young children. Late negative effects have been concerns the extent to which children this age are able reported in a variety of ERP studies with toddlers and to extract meaning from various linguistic cues. The preschoolers (Conboy & Mills, 2006; Mills, Conboy, et al., amplitude of the N400 has been interpreted to reflect 2005; Mills, Coffey-Corina, & Neville, 1997). For example, the ‘‘ease’’ with which a target can be integrated with a negative effect elicited to known versus unknown words the preceding context, at the semantic level (Osterhout from 600 to 900 msec has been hypothesized to reflect & Holcomb, 1995; Brown & Hagoort 1993). However, the need for enhanced attention during word processing the negative ERP effects noted in the present study may (Mills, Conboy, et al., 2005). Earlier negative effects to reflect the integration of linguistic information at a known versus unknown words linked to word meaning variety of levels (i.e., semantic, phonological, pragmatic, (e.g., from 200 to 400 msec) have also been reported in and syntactic levels). According to Hirsh-Pasek and those studies, and a more focal distribution of those Golinkoff (1996), children of preschool age can compre- effects have been noted in children with higher language hend word order because there are redundant prosodic skills (see also Mills, Plunkett, Prat, & Schafer, 2005; Mills, and semantic cues, although at this age they also focus Coffey-Corina, & Neville, 1993). Changes in both the their attention on syntactic cues to a larger extent than morphology and topographical distributions of ERP com- other possible sources of information. In our jabber- ponents have also been noted from childhood to adult- wocky sentences, the main cues to sentence meaning hood (Mills, Conboy, et al., 2005; Mills et al., 1997; were the regular past-tense inflections on pseudoverbs, Holcomb, Coffey, & Neville, 1992). Many language-related the intact closed class words, and thematic role infor- ERP components, for example, are at first broadly distrib- mation. In addition, many of the pseudowords sounded uted across the scalp. However, the meaning of ERP scalp sufficiently like real words, and may have been pro- asymmetries for language stimuli is a source of debate. cessed in a holistic way. Evidence from younger toddlers Several ERP studies have shown left hemisphere asym- has suggested that, under processing situations that are metries for language-related ERPs in infants (Dehaene- high in their cognitive demands, fine phonetic detail is Lambertz, 2000; Molfese & Molfese, 1979; Molfese, not always accessed in words (e.g., Mills et al., 2004; Freeman, & Palermo, 1975), whereas others have shown Pater, Stager, & Werker, 2004; Stager & Werker, 1997). broadly distributed effects that become left-lateralized Thus, it is possible that during this cognitively demand- with age and experience (Mills, Conboy, et al., 2005; Mills ing sentence processing paradigm, children may have et al., 1997). For example, in an ERP study of 11-month- been using phonological information to map the pseu- old infants, Thierry, Vihman, and Roberts (2003) found dowords onto their representations of similar sounding familiar–unfamiliar word effects in the same time range as real words. Although it might be argued that participants Mills and colleagues (i.e., from approximately 250 msec), who heard the real sentences first would have attempt- but these were larger over the right versus left hemi- ed to map the jabberwocky sentences onto their mem- sphere. Similarly, Conboy and Mills (2006) reported ories of those previously heard real sentences, this is larger right hemisphere N200–400 effects to known– unlikely, given that the order of presentation of the unknown words in the stronger language of bilingual sentence types (real vs. jabberwocky) was counterbal- 20-month-old children with larger vocabularies, and a anced, and statistical analyses indicated no differences more bilateral distribution in the weaker language of between the ERP effects observed in children who heard the same children and in both languages of children the real sentences first and those who heard the jabber- with smaller vocabularies. Thus, the meaning of the left- wocky sentences first. It is more likely that children lateralized negative effect to syntactic anomalies in were using the limited lexical–semantic information jabberwocky sentences in the present study is difficult present in the sentences to construct meaning. It has to interpret. Studies of children at different ages and been shown that children can deduce the meanings longitudinal studies would be useful for determining of unknown verbs based on knowledge about other whether these left hemisphere scalp distributions semanticandsyntacticinformationinthesentence change with age and/or language experience. (Gleitman & Gillette, 1999; Naigles, 1990, 1996; Naigles In conclusion, the appearance of a positive ERP effect & Hoff-Ginsberg, 1995; Fisher, 1994; Fisher, Gleitman, & to syntactic violations in real sentences that is similar to Gleitman, 1991; Landau & Gleitman, 1985), as well as the P600 effect reported in other studies of children and morphological markers on the verbs (e.g., Behrend, adults indicates that the neural mechanisms of syntactic Harris, & Cartwright, 1995). Our children might have parsing are present during early language development, generated expectations about what words should occur although the processes are slower in children than in

1060 Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience Volume 19, Number 6 adults. The results also suggest that semantics play a role APPENDIX (continued) in syntactic processing. Whereas syntactic violations in real English sentences elicited a positive ERP effect, Control Sentences Jabberwocky Sentences syntactic violations in jabberwocky sentences, which 9 My friend wanted his My biend clonted his contained reduced lexico-semantic information, elicited pancake with jelly. brongake with grally a left-distributed negative-going ERP effect, but not a My friend wanted with My biend clonted with his positive effect. This negative effect appears to reflect the his pancake jelly. brongake grally use of greater attentional resources and integration processes as listeners try to extract semantic information 10 That girl loved the stories That borl juved the chories from the nonsense sentences, rather than the use of about the country. about the sontry purely syntactic information. The results of this study That girl loved about the That borl juved about the with young children provide neurobiological evidence stories the country. chories the sontry that favors interactive over modular theories of syntactic 11 My babysitter played My gibyfiter chayed and semantic processing. peek-a-boo at home. beek-a-lu at chome My babysitter played My gibyfiter chayed at at peek-a-boo home. beek-a-lu chome APPENDIX 12 My brother wanted his My cother clonted his Control Sentences Jabberwocky Sentences teddybear on the bed. gaddyler on the lod 1 The mailman climbed the The bailgan plambed the My brother wanted on his My cother clonted on his tree with his bag. gree with his jeg teddybear the bed. gaddyler the lod The mailman climbed with The bailgan plambed with 13 My teacher shared her My bacher clored her thetreehisbag. the gree his jeg yogurt with my brother. pregurt with my cother 2 My grandma kissed my My brondma gissed my My teacher shared with My bacher clored with her daddy on the cheek. chidy on the preck her yogurt my brother. pregurt my cother My grandma kissed on My brondma gissed on my 14 My mommy wiped her My bammy juped her nace my daddy the cheek. chidy the preck face with a napkin. with a garkin 3 The baby smashed the The giby steshed the beable My mommy wiped with My bammy juped with her table with her toy. with her tay her face a napkin. nace a garkin The baby smashed with The giby steshed with the 15 My uncle closed the My macle clised the chor the table her toy. beable her tay door with his hand. with his shond 4 My uncle watched a movie My macle platched a flovie My uncle closed with My macle clised with the about my family. about my garily the door his hand. chor his shond My uncle watched about My macle platched about 16 My sister dressed her My bacter grissed her choll a movie my family. afloviemygarily doll on the table. on the beable 5 My aunt watched television My dant platched selegosion My sister dressed on My bacter grissed on her in my bedroom. in my lodram her doll the table. choll the beable My aunt watched in My dant platched in 17 That man bumped my That gan lomped my morck television my bedroom. selegosion my lodram truck with his foot. with his tet 6 The nurse poured some The berse dured some That man bumped with That gan lomped with my water into the pitcher. gluter into the betcher my truck his foot. morck his tet The nurse poured into The berse dured into some 18 The nurse liked the The berse huked the flovies some water the pitcher. gluter the betcher movies about animals. about polimals 7 My dolly touched the cat My cholly daunched the glat The nurse liked about The berse huked about the with her hand. with her shond the movies animals. flovies polimals My dolly touched with My cholly daunched with the 19 My teacher played the My bacher chayed the teng the cat her hand. glat her shond song about Santa Claus. about Danta Praus 8 The boys loved the stories The broys juved the chories My teacher played about My bacher chayed about about Christmas. about grastmas thesongSantaClaus. the teng Danta Praus The boys loved about The broys juved about the 20 My sister opened the My bacter drepened the the stories Christmas. chories grastmas present from my uncle. chosent from my macle

Silva-Pereyra et al. 1061 APPENDIX (continued) APPENDIX (continued)

Control Sentences Jabberwocky Sentences Control Sentences Jabberwocky Sentences

My sister opened from My bacter drepened from 32 The policeman chased The brolicegan cosed the the present my uncle. the chosent my macle the zebra in the zoo. pabra in the foo 21 The monkey touched the The nurkey daunched the The policeman chased The brolicegan cosed in bananas in that tree. buranas in that gree in the zebra the zoo. the pabra the foo The monkey touched in The nurkey daunched in 33 The boys carried their The broys dorried their the bananas that tree. the buranas that gree books inside their bags. gaks inside their jegs 22 My babysitter covered My gibyfiter huvered the The boys carried inside The broys dorried inside thetoyswithmyhat. tays with my trit their books their bags. their gaks their jegs My babysitter covered My gibyfiter huvered with 34 The baby bumped the The giby dremped the with the toys my hat. the tays my trit benchwithmybook. sanch with my gak 23 The child wanted a pancake The frild clonted a brongake The baby bumped with The giby dremped with from that store. from that spere the bench my book. the sanch my gak The child wanted from The frild clonted from a 35 My sister closed the book My bacter clised the gak a pancake that store. brongake that spere at the school. at the skal 24 My grandma baked a My brondma leked a taffin My sister closed at the My bacter clised at the muffin in the oven. in the baven book the school. gak the skal My grandma baked in My brondma leked in a 36 My aunt hugged my bear My dant cleagged my ler a muffin the oven. taffin the baven with her arms. with her berms 25 My mommy kissed my My bammy gissed my My aunt hugged with My dant cleagged with daddy in the kitchen. chiddy in the skachen my bear her arms. my ler her berms My mommy kissed in Mybammygissedinmy 37 The cowboy loved his The bawbroy juved his my daddy the kitchen. chiddy the skachen bread with butter. cread with satter 26 My daddy wiped his My chiddy juped his shonds The cowboy loved with The bawbroy juved with hands with a napkin. with a garkin his bread butter. his cread satter My daddy wiped with My chiddy juped with his 38 The nurse knocked my The berse chacked my his hands a napkin. shonds a garkin kneeswiththehammer. cleeswiththetreemer 27 The doctor checked my The brotor gicked daby The nurse knocked with The berse chacked with body with his camera. with his pamera my knees the hammer. my clees the treemer The doctor checked with The brotor gicked with 39 The man fixed my tricycle The gan daxed my brafycle my body his camera. daby his pamera with glue. with clo 28 My teacher tasted the ice My bacher splated the bice The man fixed with my The gan daxed with my cream at the school. glem at the skal tricycle glue. brafycle clo My teacher tasted at the My bacher splated at the 40 My brother kicked the My cother fincked the ice cream the school. bice glem the skal ball in the garden. mool in the farden 29 The clown splashed my The bawn chashed my My brother kicked in My cother fincked in the face with water. nace with gluter the ball the garden. mool the farden The clown splashed The bawn chashed with with my face water. my nace gluter 30 My aunt spilled some My dant plalled some birce Acknowledgments juice on my bed. on my lod This work was supported by NIH Research Core Grant, Uni- versity of Washington P30 DC04661. This work was also sup- My aunt spilled on My dant plalled on some ported by grants to P. K. K. from NIH (HD37954), and the some juice my bed. birce my lod University of Washington’s Institute for Learning and Brain 31 The man dumped the The gan dremped the Sciences. We thank Denise Padden, Kathryn Schoolcraft, and Robin Cabaniss for technical support, and Nitya Sethuraman garbage in the trash. birbage in the presh for her comments on an earlier version of the manuscript. We The man dumped in the The gan dremped the areespeciallyindebtedtothechildrenandtheirparentswho garbage the trash. birbage in the presh participated in these studies, without whom the research would not be possible.

1062 Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience Volume 19, Number 6 Reprint requests should be sent to Juan Silva-Pereyra, Institute Sentence processing: A cross-linguistic perspective for Learning and Brain Sciences, University of Washington, Box (pp. 345–377). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. 357988, Seattle, WA 98195-7988, or via e-mail: jsilvapereyra@ Dick, F., Wulfeck, B., Krupa-Kwiatkowski, M., & Bates, E. yahoo.com. (2004). The development of complex sentence interpretation in typically developing children compared with children with specific language impairments or Note early unilateral focal lesions. Developmental Science, 7, 360–377. 1. These early negativities have not been observed in all Elman, J., Bates, E., Johnson, M., Karmiloff-Smith, A., studies of morphosyntactic violations in adults (see Kim & Parisi, D., & Plunkett, K. (1996). Rethinking innateness: Osterhout, 2005). However, this may be at least partly due to A connectionist perspective on development. Cambridge: the presentation rate of words (Friederici, 1995). MIT Press. Elman, J. L., Hare, M., & McRae, K. (2005). Cues, constraints, and competition in sentence processing. In M. Tomasello & D. I. Slobin (Eds.), Beyond nature–nurture: Essays REFERENCES in honor of Elizabeth Bates (pp. 111–138). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Bates, E., Devescovi, A., & Wulfeck, B. (2001). Ferreira, F. (2003). The misinterpretation of noncanonical Psycholinguistics: A cross-language perspective. sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 47, 164–203. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 369–398. Fisher, C. (1994). Structure and meaning in the verb lexicon: Bates, E., & Goodman, J. (1999). On the emergence Input for a syntax-aided verb learning procedure. Language of grammar from lexicon. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), and Cognitive Processes, 9, 473–517. The emergence of language (pp. 29–80). Mahwah, Fisher, C., Gleitman, H., & Gleitman, L. R. (1991). On the NJ: Erlbaum. semantic content of subcategorization frames. Cognitive Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1989). Functionalism and the Psychology, 23, 331–392. competition model. In B. MacWhinney & E. Bates (Eds.), Frazier, L. (1987). Sentence processing: A tutorial review. The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing (pp. 3–76). In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance XII New York: Cambridge University Press. (pp. 559–585). London: Erlbaum. Bates, E., MacWhinney, B., Caselli, C., Devescovi, A., Natale, F., Frazier, L. (1995). Constraint satisfaction as a theory of & Venza, V. (1984). A cross-linguistic study of the sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic development of sentence interpretation strategies. Research, 24, 437–468. Child Development, 55, 341–354. Frazier, L. (1998). Getting there (slowly). Journal of Behrend, D. A., Harris, L. L., & Cartwright, K. B. (1995). Psycholinguistic Research, 27, 123–146. Morphological cues to verb meaning: Verb inflections Friederici, A. D. (1995). The time course of syntactic and the initial mapping of verb meanings. Journal of activation during language processing: A model based Child Language, 22, 89–106. on neuropsychological and neurophysiological data. Brown, C. M., & Hagoort, P. (1993). The processing nature Brain and Language, 50, 259–281. of the N400: Evidence from masked priming. Journal of Friederici, A. D. (2002). Towards a neural basis of auditory Cognitive Neuroscience, 5, 34–44. sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, Brown, R. (1973). A first language. Cambridge: Harvard 78–84. University Press. Friederici, A. D. (2005). Neurophysiological markers of Canseco-Gonzalez, E. (2000). Using the recording of early language acquisition: From syllables to sentences. event-related brain potentials in the study of sentence Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 481–488. processing. In Y. Grodzinsky, L. Shapiro, & D. Swinney Friederici, A. D., Hahne, A., & Mecklinger, A. (1996). Temporal (Eds.), Language and the brain: Representation and structure of syntactic parsing: Early and late event-related processing (pp. 229–266). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. brain potential effects elicited by syntactic anomalies. Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, Dordrecht: Foris. and Cognition, 22, 1219–1248. Clahsen, H., & Fesler, C. (2006). Grammatical processing Friederici, A. D., Hahne, A., & Saddy, D. (2002). Distinct in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 3–42. neurophysiological patterns reflecting aspects of syntactic Conboy, B. T., & Mills, D. (2006). Two languages, one complexity and syntactic repair. Journal of Psycholinguistic developing brain: Effects of vocabulary size on bilingual Research, 31, 45–63. toddlers’ event-related potentials to auditory words. Friederici, A. D., & Kotz, S. A. (2003). The brain basis of Developmental Science, 9, F1–F12. syntactic processes: Functional imaging and lesion studies. Coulson, S., King, J. W., & Kutas, M. (1998). Expect the Neuroimage, 20(Suppl. 1), S8–S17. unexpected: Event-related brain response to Friederici, A. D., Pfeifer, E., & Hanhe, A. (1993). Event-related morphosyntactic violations. Language and Cognitive brain potentials during natural speech processing: Effects Processes, 13, 21–58. of semantic, morphological and syntactic violations. Brain Dale, P. S., & Fenson, L. (1996). Lexical development Research, 1, 183–192. norms for young children. Behavior Research Methods, Gleitman, L. R., & Gillette, J. (1999). The role of syntax in Instruments, and Computers, 28, 125–127. verb learning. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Dehaene-Lambertz, G. (2000). Cerebral specialization for Handbook of child language acquisition (pp. 279–295). speech and non-speech stimuli in infants. Journal of San Diego: Academic Press. Cognitive Neuroscience, 12, 449–460. Goldberg, A. E., Casenhiser, D. M., & Sethuraman, N. (2004). Devescovi, A., D’Amico, S., Smith, S., Mimica, I., & Bates, E. Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive (1998). The development of sentence comprehension Linguistics, 15, 289–316. in Italian and Serbo-Croatian: Local versus distributed Gunter, T. C., Friederici, A. D., & Schriefers, H. (2000). cues. In D. Hillert (Ed.), Syntax and semantics: Vol. 31. Syntactic gender and semantic expectancy: ERPs reveal

Silva-Pereyra et al. 1063 early autonomy and late interaction. Journal of Cognitive Lindner, K. (2003). The development of sentence- Neuroscience, 12, 556–568. interpretation strategies in monolingual German-learning Hagoort, P., Brown, C. M., & Groothusen, J. (1993). children with and without specific language impairment. The syntactic positive shift (SPS) as an ERP measure of Linguistics, 41, 213–254. syntactic processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. 8, 439–483. (1994). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity Hagoort, P., Brown, C. M., & Osterhout, L. (1999). The resolution. Psychology Review, 101, 676–703. neurocognition of syntactic processing. In C. M. Brown MacWhinney, B. (1999) (Ed.) Emergence of language. & P. Hagoort (Eds.), The neurocognition of language Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. (pp. 273–316). New York: Oxford University Press. MacWhinney, B., & Bates, E. (1989). Cross-linguistic Hahne, A., Eckstein, K., & Friederici, A. D. (2004). Brain study of sentence processing. New York: Cambridge signatures of syntactic and semantic processes during University Press. children’s language development. Journal of Cognitive MacWhinney, B., Bates, E., & Kliegl, R. (1984). Cue validity Neuroscience, 6, 1302–1318. and sentence interpretation in English, Italian and German. Hahne, A., & Jescheniak, J. D. (2001). What’s left if the Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, jabberwocky gets the semantics? An ERP investigation 127–150. into semantic and syntactic processes during auditory Marslen-Wilson, W., & Tyler, L. K. (1980). The temporal sentence comprehension. Cognitive Brain Research, structure of spoken language understanding. Cognition, 11, 199–212. 8, 1–71. Harris, A. M. (2001). Processing semantic and grammatical Mills, D., Coffey-Corina, S., & Neville, H. (1993). Language information in auditory sentences: Electrophysiological acquisition and cerebral specialization in 20-month-old evidence from children and adults (Dissertation abstract). infants. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 5, 317–334. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B. The Mills, D., Coffey-Corina, S. A., & Neville, H. (1997). Language Sciences and Engineering, 61, 6729. comprehension and cerebral specialization from 13–20 Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Golinkoff, R. M. (1996). A coalition model months [Special issue on origins of language disorders]. of language comprehension. In K. Hirsh-Pasek & R. M. In D. Thal & J. Reilly (Eds.), Developmental Golinkoff (Eds.), The origins of grammar: Evidence from Neuropsychology, 13, 397–446. early language comprehension (pp. 150–203). Cambridge: Mills, D., Conboy, B. T., & Paton, C. (2005). How learning MIT Press. new words shapes the organization of the infant brain. Holcomb, P. J., Coffey, S. A., & Neville, H. J. (1992). Visual and In L. Namy (Ed.), Symbol use and symbolic representation auditory sentence processing: A developmental analysis (pp. 123–153). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. using event-related brain potentials. Developmental Mills, D. L., Plunkett, K., Prat, C., & Schafer, G. (2005). Neuropsychology, 8, 203–241. Watching the infant brain learn words: Effects of Kail, M., & Charvillat, A. (1988). Local and topological language and experience. Cognitive Development, 20, processing in sentence comprehension by French and 19–31. Spanish. Journal of Child Language, 15, 637–662. Mills, D., Prat, C., Zangl, R., Stager, C. L., Neville, H., & Kim, A., & Osterhout, L. (2005). The independence of Werker, J. (2004). Language experience and the organization combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from of brain activity to phonetically similar words: ERP evidence event-related potentials. Journal of Memory and from 14- and 20-month-olds. Journal of Cognitive Language, 52, 205–222. Neuroscience, 16, 1452–1464. Kuhl, P. (2004). Early language acquisition. Nature Reviews Molfese, D. L., Freeman, R. B., & Palermo, D. S. (1975). The Neuroscience, 5, 831–843. ontogeny of brain lateralization for speech and nonspeech Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K. (2000). Electrophysiology stimuli. Brain and Language, 2, 356–368. reveals semantic memory use in language comprehension. Molfese, D. L., & Molfese, V. J. (1979). Hemisphere and Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 463–470. stimulus differences as reflected in the cortical responses Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1980). Reading senseless of newborn infants to speech stimuli. Developmental sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Psychology, 15, 505–511. Science, 207, 203–205. Morris, J., & Holcomb, P. J. (2005). Event-related Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1983). Event-related brain potentials to violations of inflectional verb morphology potentials to grammatical errors and semantic anomalies. in English. Brain Research, Cognitive Brain Research, Memory & Cognition, 11, 539–550. 25, 963–981. Kutas, M., & Van Petten, C. (1994). Psycholinguistics Mu¨nte, T. F., & Heinze, H. J. (1994). ERP negativities electrified: Event-related brain potential investigations. during syntactic processing of written words. In In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics H. J. Heinze, T. F. Munte, & G. R. Mangun (Eds.), (pp. 83–143). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Cognitive electrophysiology (pp. 211–238). Boston: Kutas, M., Van Petten, C., & Kluender, R. (2006). Birkhauser. Psycholinguistics electrified II:1995–2005. In M. Traxler & Mu¨nte, T. F., Matzke, M., & Johannes, S. (1997). Brain M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), Handbook of psycholinguistics activity associated with syntactic incongruencies in words (2nd ed, pp. 659–724). New York: Elsevier Press. and pseudo-words. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 9, Landau, B., & Gleitman, L. (1985). Language and experience: 318–329. Evidence from the blind child. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Naigles, L. (1990). Children use syntax to learn verb University Press. meanings. Journal of Child Language, 17, 357–374. Lieven, E., Behrens, H., Speares, J., & Tomasello, M. (2003). Naigles, L. (1996). The use of multiple frames in verb Early syntactic creativity: A usage-based approach. Journal learning via syntactic bootstrapping. Cognition, 58, of Child Language, 30, 333–370. 221–251. Lieven, E., Pine, J. M., & Baldwin, G. (1997). Lexically-based Naigles, L. R., & Hoff-Ginsberg, E. (1995). Input to verb learning and early grammatical development. Journal of learning: Evidence for the plausibility of syntactic Child Language, 24, 187–219. bootstrapping. Developmental Psychology, 31, 827–837.

1064 Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience Volume 19, Number 6 Oberecker, R., & Friederici, A. D. (2006). Syntactic An event-related brain potential study. NeuroReport, 16, event-related potential components in 24-month-olds’ 645–648. sentence comprehension. NeuroReport, 17, 1017–1021. Silva-Pereyra, J., Rivera-Gaxiola, M., & Kuhl, P. (2005). Oberecker, R., Friedrich, M., & Friederici, A. D. (2005). An event-related brain potential study of sentence Neural correlates of syntactic processing in two-year-olds. comprehension in preschoolers: Semantic and Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17, 1667–1678. morphosyntactic processing. Cognitive Brain Research, Osterhout, L. (1997). On the brain response to syntactic 23, 247–258. anomalies: Manipulations of word position and word Slobin, D. I. (1985). Crosslinguistic evidence for the class reveal individual differences. Brain and Language, language-making capacity. In D. Slobin (Ed.), The 59, 494–522. crosslinguistic study of language acquisition: Osterhout, L., & Holcomb, P. (1995). Event-related potentials Vol. 2. Theoretical issues (pp. 1157–1249). Hillsdale, and language comprehension. In M. D. Rugg & M. G. H. NJ: Erlbaum. Coles (Eds.), Electrophysiology of mind: Event-related Stager, C. L., & Werker, J. F. (1997). Infants listen for brain potentials and cognition (pp. 171–215). New York: more phonetic detail in speech perception than in Oxford University Press. word-learning tasks. Nature, 388, 381–382. Osterhout, L., McLaughlin, J., & Bersick, M. (1997). Thierry, G., Vihman, M., & Roberts, M. (2003). Familiar Event-related brain potentials and human language. words capture the attention of 11-month-olds in less Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 1, 203–209. than 250 ms. NeuroReport, 14, 2307–2310. Pater, J., Stager, C., & Werker, J. F. (2004). The perceptual Tomasello, M. (2000). First steps toward a usage-based acquisition of phonological contrasts. Language, 80, theory of language acquisition. Cognitive Linguistics, 11, 361–379. 61–82. Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct: How the mind Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A creates language. New York: HarperCollins. usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge: Pinker, S. (1999). Words and rules: The ingredients of Harvard University Press. language. New York: Basic Books. Thal, D., & Flores, M. (2001). Development of sentence Pinker, S., & Ullman, M. T. (2002). The past and future of interpretation strategies by typically developing and the past tense. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 456–463. late-talking toddlers. Journal of Child Language, 28, Reyes, I., & Herna´ndez, A. E. (2006). Sentence interpretation 173–179. strategies in emergent bilingual children and adults. Ullman, M. T. (2004). Contributions of memory circuits to Bilingualism, 9, 51–69. language: The declarative/procedural model. Cognition, Savage, C., Lieven, E., Theakston, A., & Tomasello, M. 92, 231–270. (2003). Testing the abstractness of children’s linguistic Von Berger, E., Wulfeck, B., Bates, E., & Fink, N. (1996). representations: Lexical and structural priming of syntactic Developmental changes in real-time sentence processing. constructions in young children. Developmental Science, First Language, 16, 193–222. 6, 557–567. Wiig, E. H., Secord, W., & Semel, E. M. (1992). Clinical Silva-Pereyra, J., Klarman, L., Lin, L. J. F., & Kuhl, P. K. evaluation of language fundamentals—Preschool. (2005). Sentence processing in 30-month-old children: San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.

Silva-Pereyra et al. 1065