Cover not available
Squib published In:
Sign Language & Linguistics
Vol. 26:1 (2023) ► pp.117–138
Squib

Neurophysiological evidence for the first mention effect during pronominal reference resolution in German Sign Language

| University of Hamburg
| Goethe University Frankfurt
| University of Göttingen
| University of Hamburg
| University of Graz
ORCID logo | University of Göttingen
Anaphoric pronoun resolution in spoken language has been shown to be influenced by the first mention bias. While this bias has been well investigated in spoken languages, less is known about a similar bias in sign languages. In sign languages, pronominal pointing signs (index) are directed towards referential locations in the signing space typically associated with discourse referents. In German Sign Language (DGS), signers follow an ipsi-contralateral default pattern while tracking referents, i.e., the first referent is associated with the ipsilateral and the second referent with the contralateral area of the signing space. Hence, directing a pronoun to either the ipsi- or the contralateral side of the signing space refers to either the first or the second discourse referent. The present event-related potential study reanalyzes the data from Wienholz et al. (2018) and examines the first mention effect during pronoun resolution in ambiguous contexts in DGS. The original study presented participants with sentence sets containing two referents without overt localization in the first and a sentence-initial pronominal index sign in the second sentence directed to either the ipsilateral or contralateral side of the signing space. Based on the direction of the index sign, our analysis reveals an N400 for contralateral index signs suggesting increased processing costs triggered by a violation of the first mention effect. Thus, the current study provides first experimental evidence for a first mention effect in DGS and highlights the modality-independent nature of this effect.
Keywords: German Sign Language (Deutsche Gebaerdensprache: DGS), event-related potentials, referential processing, first mention effect, N400
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Empirical study
    • 2.1Methods
      • 2.1.1Participants
      • 2.1.2Materials and procedure
    • 2.2Analysis approach
    • 2.3Results
      • 2.3.1Behavioral data
      • 2.3.2ERP data
  • 3.Discussion
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgments
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 18 April 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.22006.wie
References (64)
References
Ariel, Mira. 2001. Accessibility theory: An overview. In Ted J. M. Sanders, Joost Schilperood, & Wilbert Spooren (eds.), Text representation. Linguistic and psycholinguistic aspects, 29–87. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arnold, Jennifer E., Janet Eisenband, Sarah Brown-Schmidt & John C. Trueswell. 2000. The rapid use of gender information: Evidence of the time course of pronoun resolution from eyetracking. Cognition 76(1). B13–B26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barberà Altimira, Gemma. 2012. The meaning of space in sign language. Reference, specificity and structure in Catalan Sign Language discourse. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Bornkessel, Ina D., Christian Fiebach & Angela D. Friederici. 2004. On the cost of syntactic ambiguity in human language comprehension: An individual differences approach. Cognitive Brain Research 21(1). 11–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina & Matthias Schlesewsky. 2009. Processing syntax and morphology: A neurocognitive perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bouchard, Denis & Colette Dubuisson. 1995. Grammar, order & position of wh-signs in Quebec Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 87(1). 99–139. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burgess, Curt & Christine Chiarello. 1996. Neurocognitive mechanisms underlying metaphor comprehension and other figurative language. Metaphor and Symbol 11(1). 67–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Capek, Cheryl M., Giordana Grossi, Aaron J. Newman, Susan L. McBurney, David Corina, Brigitte Röder & Helen J. Neville. 2009. Brain systems mediating semantic and syntactic processing in deaf native signers: Biological invariance and modality specificity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106(21). 8784–8789. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carreiras, Manuel, Morton Ann Gernsbacher & Victor Villa. 1995. The advantage of first mention in Spanish. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2(1). 124–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cormier, Kearsy. 2012. Pronouns. In Roland Pfau, Markus Steinbach & Bencie Woll (eds.), Sign language: An international handbook, 227–244. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cormier, Kearsy, Adam Schembri & Bencie Woll. 2013. Pronouns and pointing in sign languages. Lingua 1371. 230–247. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crawley, Rosalind A. & Rosemary J. Stevenson. 1990. Reference in single sentences and in texts. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 19(3). 191–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crawley, Rosalind A., Rosemary J. Stevenson & David Kleinman. 1990. The use of heuristic strategies in the interpretation of pronouns. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 19(4). 245–264. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Emmorey, Karen. 2002. Language, cognition, and the brain: Insights from sign language research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.Google Scholar
Emmorey, Karen & Diane Lillo-Martin. 1995. Processing spatial anaphora: Referent reactivation with overt and null pronouns in American Sign Language. Language and Cognitive Processes 10(6). 631–653. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth. 1993. Space in Danish Sign Language: The semantics and morphosyntax of the use of space in a visual language. Hamburg: Signum Verlag.Google Scholar
Federmeier, Kara D. & Marta Kutas. 1999. Right words and left words: Electrophysiological evidence for hemispheric differences in meaning processing. Cognitive Brain Research 8(3). 373–392. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frederiksen, Anne Therese & Rachel I. Mayberry. 2022. Pronoun production and comprehension in American Sign Language: The interaction of space, grammar, and semantics. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 37(1). 80–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geraci, Carlo. 2014. Spatial syntax in your hands. In Jyoti Iyer & Leland Kusmer (eds.), Proceedings of the Forty-Fourth Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, 123–134. Amherst, MA: GLSA. [URL]
Gernsbacher, Morton Ann. 1990. Language comprehension as structure building. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gernsbacher, Morton Ann & David J. Hargreaves. 1988. Accessing sentence participants: The advantage of first mention. Journal of Memory and Language 27(6). 699–717. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gernsbacher, Morton Ann, David J. Hargreaves & Mark Beeman. 1989. Building and accessing clausal representations: The advantage of first mention versus the advantage of clause recency. Journal of Memory and Language 28(6). 735–755. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenhouse, Samuel W. & Seymour Geisser. 1959. On methods in the analysis of profile data. Psychometrika 24(2). 95–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hänel-Faulhaber, Barbara, Nils Skotara, Monique Kügow, Uta Salden, Davide Bottari & Brigitte Röder. 2014. ERP correlates of German Sign Language processing in deaf native signers. BMC Neuroscience 15(1). 62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Happ, Daniela & Marc-Oliver Vorköper. 2006. Deutsche Gebärdensprache: Ein Lehr-und Arbeitsbuch. Frankfurt am Main: Fachhochschulverlag.Google Scholar
Haupt, Friederike S., Matthias Schlesewsky, Dietmar Roehm, Angela D. Friederici & Ina Bornkessel-Schlesewsky. 2008. The status of subject–object reanalyses in the language comprehension architecture. Journal of Memory and Language 59(1). 54–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hickok, Gregory, Margaret Wilson, Kevin Clark, Edward S. Klima, Mark Kritchevsky & Ursula Bellugi. 1999. Discourse deficits following right hemisphere damage in deaf signers. Brain and Language 66(2). 233–248. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hosemann, Jana, Annika Herrmann, Markus Steinbach, Ina Bornkessel-Schlesewsky & Matthias Schlesewsky. 2013. Lexical prediction via forward models: N400 evidence from German Sign Language. Neuropsychologia 51(11). 2224–2237. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Järvikivi, Juhani, Roger P. van Gompel, Jukka Hyönä & Raymond Bertram. 2005. Ambiguous pronoun resolution: Contrasting the first-mention and subject-preference accounts. Psychological Science 16(4). 260–264. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Sung-il, Jae-ho Lee & Morton Ann Gernsbacher. 2004. The advantage of first mention in Korean. The temporal contributions of syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic factors. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 33(6). 475–491. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kimura, Motohiro, Erich Schröger & István Czigler. 2011. Visual mismatch negativity and its importance in visual cognitive sciences. Neuroreport 22(14). 669–673. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krebs, Julia, Evie Malaia, Ronnie B. Wilbur & Dietmar Roehm. 2018. Subject preference emerges as cross-modal strategy for linguistic processing. Brain Research 16911. 105–117. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. Interaction between topic marking and subject preference strategy in sign language processing. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 35(4). 1–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kutas, Marta, & Kara D. Federmeier. 2000. Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use in language comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 4(12), 463–470. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kutas, Marta & Kara D. Federmeier. 2011. Thirty years and counting: Finding meaning in the N400 component of the event-related brain potential (ERP). Annual Review of Psychology 621. 621–647. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kutas, Marta, Helen J. Neville & Phillip J. Holcomb. 1987. A preliminary comparison of the N400 response to semantic anomalies during reading, listening and signing. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology Supplement 391. 325–330.Google Scholar
Lau, Ellen F., Colin Phillips & David Poeppel. 2008. A cortical network for semantics: (De)constructing the N400. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 9(12). 920–933. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leeson, Lorrain & John Saeed. 2012. Word order. In Roland Pfau, Markus Steinbach & Bencie Woll (eds.), Sign language: An international handbook, 245–265. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leuckefeld, Kerstin. 2005. The development of argument processing mechanisms in German: An electrophysiological investigation with school-aged children and adults Unpublished PhD dissertation, Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences Leipzig.
Li, Charles N. & Sandra A. Thompson. 1976. Subject and topic: A new typology of language. In Charles N. Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 459–489. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Liddell, Scott K. 1990. Four functions of a locus: Re-examining the structure of space in ASL. In Ceil Lucas (ed.), Sign language research: Theoretical issues, 176–198. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Lillo-Martin, Diane. 1986. Two kinds of null arguments in American Sign Language. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 4(4). 415–444. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lillo-Martin, Diane & Edward S. Klima. 1990. Pointing out differences: ASL pronouns in syntactic theory. In Susan D. Fischer & Patricia Siple (eds.), Theoretical issues in sign language research, Volume 1: Linguistics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Loew, Ruth C., Judy A. Kegl & Howard Poizner. 1997. Fractionation of the components of role play in a right-hemispheric lesioned signer. Aphasiology 11(3). 263–281. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luck, Steven J. 2005. An introduction to the event-related brain potential technique. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Meir, Irit. 2002. A cross-modality perspective on verb agreement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 20(2). 413–450. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meir, Irit & Wendy Sandler. 2008. A language in space: The story of Israeli Sign Language. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Nuhbalaoglu, Derya. 2018. Comprehension and production of referential expressions in German Sign Language and Turkish sign Language: An empirical approach. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Göttingen. [URL]
Perniss, Pamela. 2012. Use of sign space. In Roland Pfau, Markus Steinbach & Bencie Woll (eds.), Sign language: An international handbook, 412–431. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pfau, Roland. 2011. A point well taken: On the typology and diachrony of pointing. In Donna J. Napoli & Gaurav Mathur (eds.), Deaf around the world: The impact of language, 144–163. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pfau, Roland & Markus Steinbach. 2013. PERSON climbing up a tree (and other adventures in sign language grammaticalization). Sign Language & Linguistics 16(2). 189–220. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rathmann, Christian. 2003. The optionality of agreement phrase: Evidence from German Sign Language (DGS). In William Earl Griffin (ed.), The role of agreement in natural language: Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Texas Linguistics Society Conference, 181–192. Austin, TX: Texas Linguistic Forum.Google Scholar
Sandler, Wendy & Diane Lillo-Martin. 2006. Sign language and linguistic universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schlenker, Philippe. 2013. Anaphora: Insights from sign language. In Stephen R. Anderson, Jaques Moeschler & Fabienne Reboul (eds.), The Language-cognition interface: Actes du 10e Congrès International des Linguistes. Paris: Librairie Droz.Google Scholar
. 2017. Sign language and the foundations of anaphora. Annual Review of Linguistics 31, 149–177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schlesewsky, Matthias & Ina Bornkessel. 2006. Context-sensitive neural responses to conflict resolution: Electrophysiological evidence from subject–object ambiguities in language comprehension. Brain Research 1098(1). 139–152. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
St George, Marie, Marta Kutas, Antigona Martinez & Martin I. Sereno. 1999. Semantic integration in reading: Engagement of the right hemisphere during discourse processing. Brain 122(7). 1317–1325. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steinbach, Markus & Edgar Onea. 2016. A DRT analysis of discourse referents and anaphora resolution in sign language. Journal of Semantics 33(3). 409–448. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sutton-Spence, Rachel & Bencie Woll. 1999. The linguistics of British Sign Language: An introduction. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Von Eckardt, Barbara & Mary C. Potter. 1985. Clauses and the semantic representation of words. Memory & Cognition 13(4). 371–376. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wang, Luming, Matthias Schlesewsky, Balthasar Bickel & Ina Bornkessel-Schlesewsky. 2009. Exploring the nature of the ‘subject’-preference: Evidence from the online comprehension of simple sentences in Mandarin Chinese. Language and Cognitive Processes 24(7–8). 1180–1226. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wienholz, Anne, Derya Nuhbalaoglu, Nivedita Mani, Annika Herrmann, Edgar Onea & Markus Steinbach. 2018. Pointing to the right side? An ERP study on anaphora resolution in German Sign Language. PLoS ONE 13(9). e0204223. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Winston, Elizabeth A. 1996. Spatial mapping in ASL discourse. In David M. Jones (ed.), Assessing our work: Assessing our worth, 1–28. Little Rock, AR: CIT Conference Proceedings.Google Scholar
Wittenburg, Peter, Hennie Brugman, Albert Russel, Alex Klassmann & Han Sloetjes. 2006. ELAN: A professional framework for multimodality research. Proceedings of LREC, 2006, 1556–1559.Google Scholar