An alternative perspective on "semantic P600" effects in language comprehension.

353 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

An ERP study on L2 syntax processing: When do learners fail? (2014, background): “…P600, this component cannot be exclusively associated with agreement specifically, or even syntactic processing difficulties more generally, and is therefore often interpreted as a late stage of (re)analysis of information (Osterhout and Holcomb, 1992; Bornkessel-Schlesewsky and Schlesewsky, 2008).”
The linguistic processes underlying the P600 (2010, background): “…as qualitatively or functionally distinct from the P600 observed in studies of grammatical violations or garden paths, although this does not imply a consensus on the functional interpretation of the P600 (for reviews, see Bornkessel-Schlesewsky & Schlesewsky, 2008; Kuperberg, 2007; Stroud, 2008).”
Getting real about semantic illusions: rethinking the functional role of the P600 in language comprehension. (2012, background): “Bornkessel-Schlesewsky and Schlesewsky (2008) argue that there is ample evidence that the language processor constructs an interpretation of verb-final constructions before the critical verb is reached (see Bornkessel et al., 2003, for instance), and claim that this is problematic for the CCA…”
The brain basis of language processing: from structure to function. (2011, background): “Interestingly, all these different interpretations concern aspects of thematic role assignment in sentences and can be explained in an existing linguistically based processing model (23).”