NWAV 38, October 22-25, 2009
University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
Conference Abstract
Cognitive Capacities of the Sociolinguistic Monitor: Evidence from Event-Related
Potentials
Brandon Loudermilk, Eva Gutierrez & David Corina (University of California, Davis)
Event-related potentials (ERPs), electroencephalogram recordings time-locked to stimulus onset,
have been used for several decades to investigate language processing. Because ERP measures
have exquisite temporal resolution (Luck, 2005) and do not require an overt behavioral response
(Kutas & Delong, 2008), they provide a mechanism for characterizing the cognitive processes
involved in language comprehension. Experiments have identified different ERP components
which have been interpreted to reflect different functions of language processing. These include
semantic integration (e.g., Kutas & Hillyard, 1980; Kutas & Hillyard, 1984) and thematic
processing (Friederici & Frisch, 2000), as well as syntactic processing and repair (e.g., Hagoort,
Brown, & Osterhout, 1999). Work by Van Berkum et al. (2008), suggests that voice inferred
stereotypical information (e.g., age, gender, dialect) is integrated into the unfolding sentence
interpretation by the same mechanisms that subserve lexical-semantic integration. These findings
highlight the utility ERP methodology may serve in investigating the perception of
sociolinguistic variation.
In an on-going experiment, we used ERP methods to investigate the cognitive capacities of the
sociolinguistic monitor (Labov et al., 2008). Specifically, we sought to address whether
information conveyed through sociolinguistic variation is subserved by the same mechanisms
that support lexical-semantic integration. 280 passages were developed such that each passage
consisted of a context with 4 occurrences of an -ING verb, followed by a single, sentence-final
target -ING verb. Contexts were either all FORMAL (velar) or all INFORMAL (apical). The target
word was either CONSISTENT or INCONSISTENT with the preceding context. In addition, the target
could be a HIGH CLOZE word highly predicted by the context or a LOW CLOZE alternative.
Passages were read by 6 native speakers of English and digitally edited to create 8 versions of
each stimulus.
Results will be discussed in relationship to the sociolinguistic literature as well as
psycholinguistic models of sentence processing.
References
Friederici, A., & Frisch, S. (2000). Verb-argument structure processing: The role of verbspecific
and argument-specific information. Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 476-507.
Hagoort, P., Brown, C. M., & Osterhout, L. (1999). The neurocognition of syntactic processing.
In C. M. Brown & P. Hagoort (Eds.), The neurocognition of language (pp. 273-316).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1980). Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect
semantic incongruity. Science, 207, 203-205.
Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1984). Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and
semantic association. Nature, 307(5947), 161-163.