Available online at www.sciencedirect.com Journal of Memory and Language Journal of Memory and Language 59 (2008) 54–96 www.elsevier.com/locate/jml The status of subject–object reanalyses in the language comprehension architecture Friederike S. Haupt a,*, Matthias Schlesewsky b, Dietmar Roehm a, Angela D. Friederici c, Ina Bornkessel-Schlesewsky a a Independent Junior Research Group Neurotypology, Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Stephanstrasse 1A, 04103 Leipzig, Germany b Department of Germanic Linguistics, University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany c Department of Neuropsychology, Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Leipzig, Germany Received 6 September 2007; revision received 13 February 2008 Abstract This paper examines the hypothesis that grammatical function reanalyses in simple sentences should not be treated as phrase structure revisions, but rather as increased costs in ‘‘linking” an argument from a syntactic to a semantic rep- resentation. To this end, we investigated whether subject–object reanalyses in German verb-final sentences can be asso- ciated with an electrophysiological processing signature that is distinct from the response typically engendered by structure-affecting reanalyses (the P600). We hypothesized that the previously observed heterogeneous ERP component pattern for subject-object reanalyses in German might be due to task- or strategy-related interactions between the crit- ical processing mechanisms and the experimental environment. In order to minimize specific task influences, Experi- ment 1 therefore embedded subject–object ambiguities into short stories (presented auditorily). Constructions with dative and accusative objects both showed a biphasic N400-late positivity pattern for disambiguation towards an object-initial structure. These results thus contrast with previous findings, in showing that there is no principled differ- ence in the component pattern for the two types of structures. This conclusion was confirmed by the results of Exper- iment 2, which presented the identical accusative sentences from Experiment 1 in isolation using two different tasks (comprehension vs. acceptability) and again revealed N400-late positivity responses. From the overall data pattern, we conclude that the N400 is a robust correlate of grammatical function reanalysis that occurs independently of any lexical factors and, consequently, that grammatical function reanalysis is functionally distinct from phrase structure reanalysis. Ó 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Grammatical function reanalysis; Subject–object ambiguity; N400; P600; Late positivity; Extended Argument Dependency Model Introduction Real-time language comprehension is characterized * Corresponding author. Fax: +49 (0)341 35 52 17 31. by the need to make interpretive decisions even in the E-mail address: [email protected] (F.S. Haupt). absence of complete and unambiguous information 0749-596X/$ - see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2008.02.003 F.S. Haupt et al. / Journal of Memory and Language 59 (2008) 54–96 55 (e.g. Crocker, 1994; Frazier & Fodor, 1978; MacDon- which must be maintained in working memory, no such ald, Pearlmutter, & Seidenberg, 1994). As a result, the prediction is required under the subject analysis of the processing system may commit to analyses that must initial element. Finally, it has also been proposed that be revised at a later point in time. The mechanisms subject-initial sentences are preferred because they occur underlying such revisions (or ‘‘reanalyses”) are of partic- more frequently or at least show a higher degree of asso- ular theoretical interest (cf. Fodor & Ferreira, 1998) ciability with highly frequent sentence structures (Mac- because they can be used to shed light on the nature Donald & Christiansen, 2002). While these approaches of the representations assigned during online language differ substantially with respect to the concrete locus of comprehension. Thus, if the disambiguation of a partic- the processing difficulty posited for non-subject-initial ular feature towards one value as opposed to another orders, they nonetheless all share the assumption that can be shown to be costly, this suggests that the process- subject- and object-initial sentences differ with respect ing system has already committed to a particular repre- to their syntactic representation. sentation of this feature. By the same line of reasoning, if This seemingly standard assumption was called into reanalysis can be shown to differ qualitatively for two question within a recent cross-linguistically motivated, processing phenomena, this would provide evidence that neurocognitive model of online sentence comprehension, these draw upon different representations during the the Extended Argument Dependency Model (eADM; comprehension process. A detailed examination of the Bornkessel & Schlesewsky, 2006). The eADM proposes correlates of reanalysis may therefore shed light on that argument interpretation is logically independent otherwise controversial issues of representation. of structural position, such that simple subject- and The representation of word order constitutes a case object-initial sentences are associated with identical in point. As many languages of the world allow for var- phrase structures. As argument interpretation is there- ious possible orderings of constituents within a sentence, fore governed by a phrase structure-independent level the language processing system must clearly be equipped of ‘‘linking rules”, no empty categories such as traces to deal with order variations of this type. Indeed, empir- are required: a reconstruction of an argument’s base ical findings from several languages have provided evi- position is no longer necessary because this position is dence for what appears to be a principled strategy for not required for interpretation. (Note that linking-based the resolution of word order-related ambiguities, namely approaches to sentence interpretation have also been a general tendency to analyze an ambiguous initial argu- proposed in theoretical linguistics; see, for example, ment as the subject of the sentence (the ‘‘subject prefer- Bresnan, 2001; Culicover & Jackendoff, 2005; Van ence”; e.g. Bader & Meng, 1999; de Vincenzi, 1991; Valin, 2005.) Consequently, grammatical function Demiral, Schlesewsky, & Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, reanalysis (in simple sentences) does not require any 2008; Frazier & Flores d’Arcais, 1989; Lee, 2004; Schrie- alterations to the phrase structure representation, but fers, Friederici, & Ku¨hn, 1995). only a reindexation of agreement, thereby yielding While the existence of a ‘‘subject preference” is gener- increased linking costs. (Note, however, that this ally agreed upon in the literature, a number of different assumption does not carry over straightforwardly to proposals have been put forward with respect to the word order permutations that cross a clause boundary, question of how this preference comes about. For exam- e.g. long-distance scrambling.) ple, Gorrell (2000) proposed that subject-initial sen- Crucially, the Extended Argument Dependency tences are associated with simpler phrase structure Model’s approach to word order makes the prediction representations than object-initial sentences. Therefore, that processing costs arising in grammatical function the processing preference for the former could be reanalyses should be qualitatively distinct from those straightforwardly derived by a standard structural sim- engendered by classic garden path sentences (e.g. main plicity metric like Minimal Attachment (Frazier & verb—reduced relative (MV-RRC) ambiguities) because Fodor, 1978) or Gorrell’s own ‘‘Simplicity” principle. of the fundamentally different representations involved However, a more common syntactically-based perspec- in the two cases. Clause–boundary distinctions are tive assumes that the subject-preference results from encoded in the phrase structure, i.e. a subordinate clause the processing system’s endeavor to minimize filler-gap is hierarchically dominated by the main clause in the dependencies, i.e. to associate a dislocated element with phrase structure representation and the syntactic con- the first possible gap position (e.g. Crocker, 1994; Fra- stituency of an argument changes depending on whether zier & Flores d’Arcais, 1989), or to avoid filler-gap it is part of the main clause or the subordinate clause. chains altogether if possible (de Vincenzi, 1991). Com- Hence, MV-RRC ambiguities, direct object-embedded bining a syntactic and a cognitive resource-based per- subject ambiguities (e.g. in John knows the truth hurts) spective, Gibson (1998) posits that subject-initial and relative clause attachment ambiguities all involve structures are preferred because they require the mainte- ambiguities (and hence revisions) of phrase structure nance of fewer open dependencies, i.e. while an initial representations, whereas ambiguities in the domain of object generates a prediction for an upcoming subject word order/grammatical functions do not. 56 F.S. Haupt et al. / Journal of Memory and Language 59 (2008) 54–96 Qualitative distinctions in reanalysis as revealed by event- Kurths, 2000; Bornkessel et al., 2004; Friederici & related brain potentials Mecklinger, 1996; Friederici, Mecklinger, Spencer, Steinhauer, & Donchin, 2001; Frisch, Schlesewsky, The issue of possible qualitative differences in reanaly- Saddy, & Alpermann, 2002; Matzke, Mai, Nager, Ru¨s- sis can be