English
 
Help Privacy Policy Disclaimer
  Advanced SearchBrowse

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT
Add to Basket
  Local TagsRelease HistoryDetailsSummary

Released
Journal Article

The use of referential context and grammatical gender in parsing: A reply to Brysbaert and Mitchell

MPS-Authors
/persons/resource/persons189

Van Berkum,  Jos J. A.
Neurocognition of Language Processing , MPI for Psycholinguistics, Max Planck Society;
Department of Psychonomics, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands;

/persons/resource/persons69

Hagoort,  Peter
Neurocognition of Language Processing , MPI for Psycholinguistics, Max Planck Society;
Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, External Organizations;

Brown,  Colin M.
Neurocognition of Language Processing , MPI for Psycholinguistics, Max Planck Society;

External Resource
No external resources are shared
Fulltext (restricted access)
There are currently no full texts shared for your IP range.
Fulltext (public)
Supplementary Material (public)
There is no public supplementary material available
Citation

Van Berkum, J. J. A., Hagoort, P., & Brown, C. M. (2000). The use of referential context and grammatical gender in parsing: A reply to Brysbaert and Mitchell. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29(5), 467-481. doi:10.1023/A:1005168025226.


Cite as: https://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-001M-0000-0013-2138-7
Abstract
Based on the results of an event-related brain potentials (ERP) experiment (van Berkum, Brown, & Hagoort. 1999a, b), we have recently argued that discourse-level referential context can be taken into account extremely rapidly by the parser. Moreover, our ERP results indicated that local grammatical gender information, although available within a few hundred milliseconds from word onset, is not always used quickly enough to prevent the parser from considering a discourse-supported, but agreement-violating, syntactic analysis. In a comment on our work, Brysbaert and Mitchell (2000) have raised concerns about the methodology of our ERP experiment and have challenged our interpretation of the results. In this reply, we argue that these concerns are unwarranted and, that, in contrast to our own interpretation, the alternative explanations provided by Brysbaert and Mitchell do not account for the full pattern of ERP results.