Background Dissociation: Lexical-gender ( king ) - recovered directly from the lexicon

1. P2 P1 Pz P3 P4 P2 P1 Pz P3 P4 Pz P3 P2 P4 P1 Pz P4 P2 P1 P3 Can context affect gender processing? ERP Evidence about differences between lexical and stereotypical gender H. Kreiner, S. Mohr, K. Kessler, and Garrod, S. CCNI, University of Glasgow, UK hamutal@psy.gla.ac.uk • The question • Readers experience processing difficulty when an anaphor (herself) refers to an antecedent (minister) that mismatches in gender (e.g., (a), (b)). • Yesterday the king left London after reminding herself about the letter. • After reminding herself about the letter, the king immediately went to the meeting. • This difficulty evidenced in both eye-tracking[1] and ERP studies[2] and has been attributed to a gender clash between the pronoun and the antecedent. • In this paper we ask whether, and in which conditions, • discourse context can modulate this clash and how this is reflected in EEG parameters. • Background • Dissociation: • Lexical-gender (king) - recovered directly from the lexicon • Stereotypical-gender (minister) – inferred from pragmatic information[3] Hence: Stereotypical gender – more sensitive to context effects[4]. • Support from eye-tracking studies [1] : • In anaphora (a) both noun types lead to similar mismatch-effect. • In cataphora (b) mismatch-effect shown only for lexical-gender nouns • Conclusion: Stereotypical, unlike lexical gender, can be overridden when gender is prespecified by context (b). • Inconsistency with ERP findings: • Lexical features can be overridden by context[5]. • P600 mismatching-effects for both stereotypical & lexical nouns • No qualitative difference in the processing of these noun types[2]. Method Participants. 20 native English speakers in each experiment. Materials. 160 ANAPHORA sentences (e.g. a, b) in Experiment 1: (a1) Yesterday the king/minister left London after reminding himself about the letter. (a2)Yesterday the king/ministerleft London after reminding herself about the letter. 160 CATAPHORA sentences (e.g., c, d) in Experiment 2: (b1) After reminding himself about the letter, the king/minister immediately went to the meeting. (b2) After reminding herself about the letter, the king/minister immediately went to the meeting. Design. 2X2 - Gender Type (lexical/stereotypical) X Matching (match/mismatch). Procedure. ◦ Silent reading, word by word visual presentation ◦ 50% fillers; 25% Comprehension questions. Analysis. ◦ 200 msec. epoch pre-stimulus onset was used as reference. ◦ EEG time-locked to onset of target (pronoun in Exp.1; role-noun in Exp.2 ◦ Data filtering, Automatic artifact correction & rejection using BESA 5.1.6. Anaphora (Exp.1) Cataphora (Exp.2) 250-500 ms. from target onset Lexical Stereotypical 500-750 ms. from target onset Lexical Stereotypical • Findings (500-750 msec. from target onset): • ERP analysis: mismatching effect for both stereotypical and lexical role nouns in anaphora and cataphora. • ERP-components: no qualitative difference; however amplitudes - modulated by sentence structure and noun-type: • Anaphora: P600-like mismatching effect - larger for lexical compared to stereotypical gender • Cataphora sentences: only subtle interaction between gender matching and noun type • Discussion • Why does the seemingly pragmatic effect of stereotypical gender mismatching elicits a P600-like component and not an N400? • Sentence structure modulates ERP wave form – what does this reflect? • Differences in discourse alignment (the antecedent precedes the reference in anaphora and vice versa in cataphora)? • Different types of target words (pronouns in anaphora, nouns in cataphora) elicit different processes? • What can we learn from different EEG analyses? • Time-Frequency Representations: Gamma mismatching effects diverge between anaphora and cataphora. Match Mismatch Match Mismatch 0-1000 ms. from target onset Lexical References: [1] Pollatsek, Bolozky, Well, & Rayner, 1981 [2] Deutsch & Rayner, 1999 [3] Farid & Grainger, 1996 [4] Engbert & Kliegl, 2004 [5] MacDonald, Mac Cumhaill, Tamariz & Shillcock (in preparation). Stereotypical

2. References:[1] Kreiner, H., Sturt, P. & Garrod, S. (2008). Processing definitional and stereotypical gender in reference resolution: Evidence from eye- movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 239–261. [2] Osterhout, L., Bersick, M., & McLaughlin, J. (1997). Brain potentials reflect violations of gender stereotypes. Memory & Cognition, 25, 273–285. [3] McKoon, G. and Ratcliff, R. (1992). Inference during reading. Psychological Review, 99, 440-466.[4] Carreiras, M., Garnham, A., Oakhill, J. and Cain K. (1996). The use of stereotypical gender information in constructing a mental model: Evidence from English and Spanish. The quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49A(3),639-663.[5] Nieuwland, M. S., & van Berkum, J. J. A. (2006). When peanuts fall in love: N400 evidence for the power of discourse. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(7), 1098–1111.