The extended argument dependency model: a neurocognitive approach to sentence comprehension across languages.

By Ina Bornkessel, Matthias Schlesewsky. Psychology Review, 2006

424 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Developmental and Educational Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c1ce3d382e547643575c477f1f1beb3a735494dd

How researchers see this paper

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

In Cognitive Neuroscience

1. Angela D. Friederici
2. Matthias Schlesewsky
3. Susan M. Garnsey
4. Mieko Ueno
5. Ina Bornkessel-Schlesewsky
6. Hartmut Fitz
7. Harm Brouwer
8. John C. J. Hoeks

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

1. Angela D. Friederici
2. Matthias Schlesewsky
3. Mieko Ueno
4. Susan M. Garnsey
5. Ina Bornkessel-Schlesewsky
6. Hartmut Fitz
7. Harm Brouwer
8. John C. J. Hoeks

Citations in the corpus

• Prediction during language comprehension: benefits, costs, and ERP components. (2012, background): “, 2011), although this continues to be a topic of debate (Bornkessel and Schlesewsky, 2006).”
• The status of subject-object reanalyses in the language comprehension architecture (2008, background): “Crucially, the Extended Argument Dependency Model’s approach to word order makes the prediction that processing costs arising in grammatical function reanalyses should be qualitatively distinct from those engendered by classic garden path sentences (e.g. main verb—reduced relative (MV-RRC) ambiguiti”
• Getting real about semantic illusions: rethinking the functional role of the P600 in language comprehension. (2012, background): “Bornkessel-Schlesewsky and Schlesewsky (2008) propose that their extended Argument Dependency Model (eADM) (Bornkessel and Schlesewsky, 2006) can overcome these problems.”
• The brain basis of language processing: from structure to function. (2011, background): “Some models primarily focus on the neuroanatomy of speech perception (118, 213), whereas others try to specify the functional neuroanatomy of semantic and syntactic processes as well as the time course of these (21, 67).”
• An ERP study of the processing of subject and object relative clauses in Japanese (2008, background): “Bornkessel and Schlesewsky (2006) fractionated late positive effects into the P600 and the late positivity, and argue that the P600 is linked to a step called ‘Compute linking (agreement mismatch)’ in Phase 2, and the late positivity is linked to steps called ‘Generalised mapping’ and ‘Well-formedne”
• Neural correlates of processing case in adults and children. (2025, unknown): “Transitive sentences have at least one more argument than intransitive sentences, and hence they are more complex syntactically (Bornkessel & Schlesewsky, 2006).”