Colloquia Germanica Stetinensia

Previously: Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego. Colloquia Germanica Stetinensia

ISSN: 2450-8543     eISSN: 2353-317X    OAI    DOI: 10.18276/cgs.2020.29-08
CC BY-SA   Open Access   DOAJ  ERIH PLUS

Issue archive / nr 29
Von der Modularität zur Interaktivität und zurück: Die Crux mit der Zeit beim Satzverstehen – eine kritische Bestandsaufnahme am Beispiel des Deutschen
(From modularity to interactivity and back: The crux with time in sentence comprehension – A critical review on the example of German)

Authors: Jolanta Sękowska ORCID
Uniwersytet Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej
Keywords: procedural modularity sentence processing sentence comprehension
Year of publication:2020
Page range:16 (157-172)
Cited-by (Crossref) ?:
Downloads ?: 140

Abstract

The controversy over procedural modularity has subsided significantly with the crisis of generative grammar and the emergence and rapid rise of holistic cognitive linguistics. However, the current findings in the field of sentence perception (the so-called German paradigm), which are mainly provided for the German language, throw a new light on this question. The paper deals with the temporal dimension of sentence comprehension with special attention paid to the underdetermination of the concept of procedural module as well as to the premature interpretation of some experimental findings as evidence against/for the thesis of procedural modularity.
Download file

Article file

Bibliography

1.Barrett, Sarah E., Michael D. Rugg. „Event-related potentials and the semantic matching of faces“. Neuropsychologia 27/7 (1989): 913–922. DOI:10.1016/0028-3932(89)90067-5.
2.Berwick, Robert C., Angela D. Friederici, Noam Chomsky, Johan J. Bolhuis. „Evolution, brain, and the nature of language“. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 17/2 (2013): 89–98. DOI:10.1016/j.tics.2012.12.002.
3.Carruthers, Peter. „The Case for Massively Modular Models of Mind“. In: Contemporary debates in cognitive science, hrsg. v. Robert J. Stainton, 3–21. Oxford: Blackwell, 2006.
4.Chomsky, Noam. Lectures on Government and Binding. The Pisa Lectures. Dordrecht: Foris Publications, 1981.
5.Fodor, Jerry A. The Modularity of Mind. Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 1983.
6.Friederici, Angela D. „The neurobiology of language comprehension“. In: Sprachrezeption. Enzyklopädie der Psychologie (Vol. C/III/2), hrsg. v. Angela D. Friederici, 265–304. Göttingen: Hogrefe, 1999.
7.Friederici, Angela D. „Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing“. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6/2 (2002): 78–84. DOI:10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01839-8.
8.Hahne, Anja, Angela D. Friederici. „Electrophysiological evidence for two steps in syntactic analysis. Early automatic and late controlled processes“. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 11/2 (1999): 194–205. DOI:10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01839-8.
9.Just, Marcel Adam, Patricia A. Carpenter, Jacqueline D. Woolley. „Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension“. Journal of Experimental Psychology 111/2 (1982): 228–238. DOI:10.1037//0096-3445.111.2.228.
10.Kaup, Barbara, Carolin Dudschig. „Sätze und Texte verstehen und produzieren“. In: Allgemeine Psychologie, hrsg. v. Jochen Müsseler, Martina Rieger, 467–530. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2017. DOI:10.1007/978-3-642-53898-8.
11.Kölsch, Stefan, Walter A. Siebel. „Towards a neural basis of music perception“. Trends in Cognitive Science 9/12 (2005): 578–584. DOI:10.1016/j.tics.2005.10.001.
12.Kutas, Marta, Steven A. Hillyard. „Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association“. Nature 307/5947 (1984): 161–163. DOI:10.1038/307161a0.
13.Marslen-Wilson, William D. „Sentence perception as an interactive parallel process“. Science 189 (1975): 226–228. DOI: 10.1126/science.189.4198.226.
14.Marslen-Wilson, William D., Lorraine Komisarjevsky Tyler. „The temporal structure of spoken language understanding“. Cognition 5 (1980): 1–71. DOI:10.1016/0010-0277(80)90015-3.
15.Steinhauer, Karsten, John E. Drury. „On the early left-anterior negativity (ELAN) in syntax studies“. Brain & Language 120 (2012): 135–162. DOI:10.1016/j.bandl.2011.07.001.
16.Swinney, David A., David T. Hakes. „Effects of prior context upon lexical access during sentence comprehension“. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 15 (1976): 681–689. DOI:10.1016/0022-5371(76)90060-8.
17.van Berkum, Jos J. A., Peter Hagoort, Colin M. Brown. „Semantic integration in sentences and discourse: evidence from the N400“. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 11/6 (1999): 657–671. DOI:10.1162/089892999563724.
18.van den Brink, Daniëlle, Peter Hagoort. „The influence of semantic and syntactic context constraints on lexical selection and integration in spoken-word comprehension as revealed by ERPs“. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 16/6 (2004): 1068–1084. DOI:10.1162/0898929041502670.
19.van Petten, Cyma, Marta Kutas. „Interactions between sentence context and word frequency in event-related brain potentials“. Memory & Cognition 18/4 (1990): 380–393. DOI:10.3758/bf03197127.
20.van Petten, Cyma, Marta Kutas. „Electrophysiology ad lexical processing“. In: Understanding word and sentence, hrsg. v. G. B. Simpson, 129–174. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., 1991.
21.Weckerly, Jill, Marta Kutas. „An electrophysiological analysis of animacy effects in the processing of object relative sentences“. Psychophysiology 36/5 (1999): 559–570. DOI:10.1111/1469-8986.3650559.