Processing of Non-Canonical Word Orders in (In)felicitous Contexts: Evidence from Event-Related Brain Potentials

Abstract

In many languages with flexible word orders, canonical word order has a processing advantage over non-canonical word orders. This observation suggests that it is more costly for the parser to represent syntactically complex sentences because of filler-gap dependency formation. Alternatively, this phenomenon may relate to pragmatic factors because most previous studies have presented non-canonical word orders without felicitous context, which violates participants’ expectations regarding the information structure encoded by non-canonical word orders. The present study conducted an event-related potential experiment to examine the locus of the processing difficulty associated with non-canonical word orders in Japanese by manipulating word order (SOV vs. OSV) and the givenness of arguments. The non-canonical OSV sentence has been used felicitously when the O was mentioned in a prior discourse to make the discourse more coherent. The experiment’s results showed that OSV elicited a sustained left anterior negativity from O to S and a P600 effect at the S position compared to that of SOV in the infelicitous but not in the felicitous context. This result suggests that the processing difficulty of non-canonical word orders in Japanese is alleviated by discourse factors, such as the alignment of discourse-old and discourse-new NPs. [Open Access]

Full text

!
!
1!
Language,!Cognition!and!Neuroscience!
DOI:!https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2018.1489066!
Processing*of*non-canonical*word*orders*in*(in)felicitous*contexts:*
Evidence*from*event-related*brain*potentials*
*
Masataka!Yano!a!and!Masatoshi!Koizumi!b,!c!
a!Faculty!of!Humanities,!Kyushu!University,!Fukuoka!Japan;!b!Department!of!Linguistics,!
Graduate!School!of!Arts!and!Letters,!Tohoku!University,!Sendai,!Japan;!c!Harvard-Yenching!
Institute,!Cambridge,!MA,!USA!
masayano@kyudai.jp!
!
Abstract*
In!many!languages! with! flexible! word! orders,! canonical! word!order!has!a!processing!advantage!over!
non-canonical! word! orders.! This! observation! suggests! that! it! is! more! costly! for! the! parser! to! represent!
syntactically! complex! sentences! because! of! filler-gap! dependency! formation.! Alternatively,! this!
phenomenon!may!relate!to!pragmatic!factors!because!most!previous!studies!have!presented!non-canonical!
word!orders!without!felicitous!context,!which!violates!participants’!expectations!regarding!the!information!
structure.!The!present!study!conducted!an!event-related!potential!experiment!to!examine!the!locus!of!the!
processing! difficulty!associated! with! non-canonical! word! orders! in! Japanese! by! manipulating! word! order!
(SOV! vs.! OSV)! and! the! givenness! of! arguments.!The! results! showed! that! OSV! elicited! a! sustained! left!
anterior!negativity!from!O!to!S!and!a!P600!effect!at!S!compared!to!that!of!SOV!in!the!infelicitous!but!not!in!
the!felicitous! context.! This! result! sugg ests! that! the! processing! difficulty! of!non-canonical! word! orders! in!
Japanese!is!alleviated!by!discourse!factors.!
!
Keywords:* *
word!order,!givenness,!filler-gap!dependency,!Japanese,!event-related!potentials!
!
1. Introduction*
In! real-time! sentence! comprehension,! the! parser! incrementally! constructs! various! structural!
dependencies! from! a! string! of! successive!inputs.! Among!such! dependen cies,!the! processing! of! filler-gap!
dependency! has! been! extensively! examined.! Behavioural! experiments!of! many! languages! with! flexible!
word!orders!have!repeatedly!reported!that! canonical! word!order! has! a! processing!advantage!over!other!
possible!derived! word!orders!with! filler-gap!dependency!(Bader!&!Meng,! 1999;!Kaiser!&!Trueswell,! 2004;!
Kim,! 2012;! Koizumi! et! al.,! 2014;! Mazuka,! Itoh,! &! Kondo,! 2002;! Sekerina,! 1997;! Tamaoka! et! al.,! 2005;!

!
!
2!
Tamaoka,!Kanduboda,!&!Sakai,!2011).!For!example,!Tamaoka!et!al.!(2005)!found!that!it!took!more!time!to!
judge! whether! a! sentence! makes! sense! in! non-canonical! object-subject-verb! (OSV)!sentences! than! in!
canonical!subject-object-verb!(SOV)! sentences! in! Japanese.!The!processing!advantage!for!canonical!word!
order!has! also!been!attested! by!neurolinguistic!evidence,!such!as!fMRI!and!event-related!brain!potentials!
(ERPs)! (Fiebach,! Schlesewsky,! &! Friederici,! 2001,! 2002;! Fiebach,! Schlesewsky,! Lohmann,! von! Gramon,! &!
Friederici,! 2005;! Hagiwara,! Soshi,! Ishihara,! &! Imanaka,! 2007;! Kim! et! al.,! 2009;! Rösler,! Pechmann,! Streb,!
Röder,!&!Hennighausen,!1998;!Ueno!&!Kluender,!2003).!
These!observations!raise!the!question!of!why!canonical!is!preferred!over!non-canonical!word!orders!in!
sentence!comprehension.!One!possible!factor!is!conceptual!accessibility!(“the!ease!with!which!the!mental!
representation!of!some!potential!referent!can!be!activated!in!or!retrieved!from!memory”,!Bock!&!Warren,!
1985,! p.!50)! (Bornkessel-! Schlesewsky! and! Schlesewsky,! 2009a,! 2009b;! Kemmerer,! 2012;! Tanaka! et! al.,!
2011).! In! the!languages! in! which! an! S! precedes! an! O,! a! conceptually! more! accessible! agent! precedes! a!
conceptually! less! accessible! patient! in! canonical! word! orders,! whereas!the! opposite! order! occurs! in!
non-canonical! word! orders.! Several! studies! have! reported! that! prominent! entities! such! as! an! agent,!
animates,! concretes,! and! prototypicals! tend! to! appear! as! sentence-initial! subjects! (cf.! Bock! &! Warren,!
1985;!Bornkessel-Schlesewsky!&!Schlesewsky,!2009a;!Branigan,! Pickering,! &! Tanaka,! 2008;! Hirsh-Pasek! &!
Golinkoff,!1996;! Primus,!1999;!Slobin!&!Bever,!1982).!Accordingly,!the!preference!for!canonical! SO! order!
may! derive!from! the! preference! for! agent-patient! order.!However,! this! hypothesis!cannot! explain! the!
preference!for!canonical!word!orders!in!languages!in!which!an!S! follows!an!O,!such!as!Kaqchikel!(a!Mayan!
language! spoken! in! Guatemala)!and!Truku!Seediq! (an! Austronesian!language! spoken! in! Taiwan).!Previous!
behavioural!and!ERP!experiments!have! found! that! canonical! VOS! order! incurred! a! lower!processing! cost!
compared!to!that!of!non-canonical!word!orders,!such!as!SVO!and!VSO!in!Kaqchikel! (Koizumi!et!al.,!2014;!
Koizumi! &! Kim,! 2016;! Yano,! Yasunaga,! &! Koizumi,! 2017;!Yasunaga,! Yano,! Yasugi,! &! Koizumi,! 2015).!
Moreover,!an!ERP!experiment!found!a!larger!P600!effect!for!the!non-canonical!SVO!than!the!canonical!VOS,!
irrespective!of!agent-patient!order! (i.e.!voice! alternation)!in!Truku!Seediq! (Yano! et! al.,!2017b).!Therefore,!
the! conceptual! accessibility! hypothesis! does! not! seem! plausible! for! explaining! canonical! word-order!
preference.!
Another! possibility! concerns! the! syntactic! complexities!of! non-canonical! sentences.! Since! the! filler!
must!be!associated!with!its!gap!position!(Frazier!&!Clifton,!1989),!the!storage!and!integration! cost!should!
increase!in! non-canonical! sentences!(Gibson,! 1998;! 2000).! This! hypothesis! has! been! supported! by! ERP!
experiments.!For!example,!Ueno! and!Kluender!(2003)!compared!the!canonical!SOV!sentences!in!(1a)!and!
the!non-canonical!OSV!sentences!in!(1b)!in!Japanese.!They!found!a!sustained!(bilateral)!anterior!negativity!
for!“the$reckless$adventurer-NOM”!in!OSV!compared!to!SOV.!Furthermore,!OSV!elicited!a!phasic!P600!effect!

!
!
3!
at!the!S!(adventurer-NOM).1!They!interpreted!their!results!by!assuming!that!the!parser!needed!to!actively!
maintain!an! O! in! the!working! memory! and! syntactically!integrate!it!with!its!original!position,!reflected!by!
sustained!anterior!negativity!and!P600! effects,!respectively.!An!fMRI!study!conducted!by!Kim! et!al.!(2009)!
revealed!greater!activity! at!the!left! inferior!frontal!gyrus!(LIFG)! in!OVS!than!in! SVO!in!Japanese.!They! also!
took!this!increased! activity!as! evidence! that!syntactic! complexity!due!to!filler-gap!dependency!induces! a!
processing!load!associated!with!OSV.!
!
(1)!
Ano!jimotono!shinbun-ni!yoruto!…! !
!
the!local!newspaper-to!according!…!
!
“According!to!the!local!newspaper!..”!
!
a.!SOV:! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
sono! !
inochishirazuno! !
bokenka-ga! !
toto! !
sore-o! !
mitsuketa-ndesu-ka.!
!
!
the! !
reckless! !
adventurer-NOM!
finally! !
that-ACC! !
discovered-POL-Q!
!
!
“did!the!reckless!adventurer!finally!discover!that?”!
!
b.!OSV:! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
sore-oi!
sono! !
inochishirazuno! !
bokenka-ga! !
toto! !
!_____i!
mitsuketa-ndesu-ka.!
!
that-ACC! !
the!
reckless! !
adventurer-NOM!
finally! !
!
discovered-POL-Q!
!
However,!most!previous!studies!did!not!take!discourse!factors!into!account.!Canonical!word!order!can!
be!used!in!a! variety! of!contexts,!while!non-canonical!order!is!used! in! limited!contexts!in!which! discourse!
requirements!are!satisfied.!Because!previous!studies!presented!non-canonical!sentences!in!isolation,!which!
violated!participants’!expectations!regarding!their!information!structure,!the!extent!to!which!the!increased!
processing!difficulty!can!be!explained!by!discourse!factors!remains!unclear.! !
!
2. Processing*of*non-canonical*word*order*in*context*
The!felicitous!use!of!non-canonical!word!orders!has!been!suggested!to!correlate!with!discourse!factors,!
such!as! givenness,! as! well! as! sentence-internal,! non-syntactic! factors,! such! as! the! heaviness! of! displaced!
constituents! (e.g.! Aissen,! 1992;! Birner! &!Ward,! 2009;! Kuno,! 1987,$inter$ alia).! In! other! words,! canonical!
word! order! is! a! default! option! for! describing!an! event! and! occurs! in! a! wide! range! of! contexts,! whereas!
non-canonical!word!order!is!a!marked!choice,!and!its!use!must!be!well!motivated.!Kuno!(1978)!claimed!that!
scrambling! is! motivated! by! what! he! called! the! Informa tion! Flow! Principle.! According! to! the! Information!
Flow! principle,! OSV! in! Japanese! is! used! felicito usly! when! O! refers!to! discourse-older!information! than! S!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1!They!also!observed!a!P600!again!at!the!adverb!(“toto”!finally).!The!successive!P600!effects!may!be!due!to!
a!temporal!ambiguity!of!an!original!position!of!the!filler.!If!the!parser!actively!attempts!to!fill!a!gap!(Active!
Filler!Strategy,!Frazier!and!Clifton,!1989),!it!should!perform!a!gap-filling!parsing!at!S!first!and!do!so!again!at!
the!adverb!after!detecting!a!final!gap!position.!

!
!
4!
does.!Otherwise,!SOV!should!be!preferred!over!OSV.!Consistent!with!this!view,!a!corpus!analysis!conducted!
by!Imamura!(2014)!demonstrated!that! the! O!of!OSV!in! Japanese!was!discourse-old!information! in!81%!of!
OSV! occurrences! in! the! corpus! (see! also! Imamura,! 2015;!Imamura! &! Koizumi,! 2011).! Furthermore,! in! a!
sentence!recall!task,!Ferreira!and!Yoshita! (2003)!observed!that! native!Japanese!speakers! tend! to!produce!
ditransitive!sentences!in!the!given-new!order!when!asked!to!recall!those!that!originally!had!the!new-given!
order.!These!observations!support!that!scrambling!in!Japanese!is!motivated!to!create!a!given-new!order!in!
a!sentence.!
Despite!this! close! correlation,! most! previous! studies! on! sentence! comprehension! examined!the!
processing! of! non-canonical! structures! without! felicitous! context,! which! leads! to! a! confounding!of! the!
difficulty!of! syntactically! complex!structures! and! the! accommodating!of! an! unsatisfied! discourse!
requirement.! This! problem! was! discussed! in! Kaiser! and!Trueswell! (2004),! who!conducted! a! self-paced!
reading!experiment!to!examine!whether!the!processing!difficulty!with!non-canonical!word!order!relates!to!
discourse!factors!rather!than!syntactic!complexities!in!Finnish!(see!also!Clifton!C!&!Frazier,!2004;!Grodner,!
Gibson,!&!Watson,!2005;!Meng,!Bader,!&!Bayer,!1999;!Sekerina,!2003).!They!presented!two!context!types,!
as!shown!in!(2).!The!supportive!context!in!(2a)!referred!to!an!O!of!the!target!sentences!in!(3b)!to!license!a!
felicitous!use!of!OVS,!in!which!O!must!be!discourse-old!information!in!Finnish,!whereas!the!non-supportive!
context! in! (2b)! did! not.!The! result! showed! no! interaction! of! context! and! word! order! at! the! V! (seurasi$
“followed”).! However,!they! found! a! significant! two-way! interaction!at! the! NP2! (“hare-PART”! and!
“mouse-NOM”),!due!to!a!longer!reading!time!in!OVS!than!in!SVO!only!in!the!non-supportive!context.! !
!
(2)!
Preceding!context!
!
Lotta!
etsi!
eilen!
sieniä!
metsässä.!
Hän!
huomasi!
!
Lotta!
looked-for!
yesterday!
mushrooms!
forest-in!
She-NOM!
noticed!
!
heinikossa!
(a)jäniksen!/(b)hiiren!
joka!
liikkui!
varovasti!
eteenpäin.!
!
grass-in!
hare-ACC/mouse-ACC!
that!
was.moving!
carefully! !
forward.!
!
“Lotta!looked!for!mushrooms!in!the!forest!yesterday.!She!noticed!{(a)!a!hare!/(b)!a!mouse}!moving!
forward!carefully!in!the!grass.”!
!
(3)!
a.!SVO!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Hiiri!
seurasi!
jänistä!
ja!
linnut!
lauloivat.!
!
mouse-NOM!
followed!
hare-PART!
and!
birds!
were.singing.!
!
b.!OVS!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Jänistä!
seurasi!
hiiri!
ja!
linnut!
lauloivat.!
!
hare-PART!
followed!
mouse-NOM!
and!
birds!
were.singing.!
!
“The!mouse!followed!the!hare!and!birds!were!singing.”!
! !

!
!
5!
!A! similar!interaction! of!context! by! word! order!has!been!observed!in! Japanese.! In! Japanese,! the!
canonical! word! order!is! SOV.! According! to! transformational! syntactic! theories,! non-canonical! OSV!
sentences!involve!a! filler-gap!dependency!between!the!fronted!O!and!an!associated!gap! between!S!and!V!
(i.e.![Oi![S!gapi!V]]).!This!filler-gap!dependency!is!lacking!in!canonical!SOV!sentences.!Koizumi!and!Imamura!
(2017)!ran!a! self-paced!reading!experiment!using!the! same! factorial!manipulation!as!Kaiser! and!Trueswell!
(2004)!(i.e.!supportive/non-supportive!✕!canonical/non-canonical!word!order).!They!observed!a!significant!
interaction!between!word!order!and!context!at!the!NP2.!This!interaction!showed!a!larger!word-order!effect!
in! the! unsupportive! than! in!the! supportive! context.! At! the! V,! only! the! main! word-order! effect! was!
significant,!reflecting!a!longer!reading!time!for!OSV.!
!
(4)!
Gaimusyoo-no!
zikan-wa!
(a)!Kaneda-da.!/!(b)!Kuroki-da.! !
!
Ministry.of.Foreign.Affairs-GEN!
vice.minister-TOP!
Kaneda-COP!/!Kaneda-COP!
!
“It!is!(a)!Kaneda/(b)!Kuroki!who!is!the!vice!minister!of!the!Ministry!of!Foreign!Affairs.!
(5)!
a.!SOV:! !
!
!
!
!
Kuroki-ga!
Kaneda-o!
mukaeta!
rashii.!
!
Kuroki-NOM!
Kaneda-ACC!
welcomed!
is.likely!
!
“It!is!likely!that!Kuroki!welcomed!Kaneda.”!
!
b.!OSV:! !
!
!
!
!
Kaneda-o!
Kuroki-ga!
mukaeta!
rashii.!
!
Kaneda-ACC!
Kuroki-NOM!
welcomed! !
is.likely.!
! !
These!results! suggest!that!the!processing!difficulty!of!non-canonical!sentences! decreased!when!their!
discourse! requirement! was! satisfied.! However,! it! is!not! clear! from! behavioural! experiments! how! this!
context! effect! pertains! to! the! processing! difficulty!that! has! been! claimed! to! be! associated! with!
long-distance! dependency! formation,! such! as! the! filler! storage!cost! indexed! by! sustained! anterior!
negativity!and!the! syntactic!integration!cost!indexed!by!P600!in!ERP!experiments.!If!these!ERP! effects! are!
related!to!the!cost! of! syntactic!dependency!formation!as!has!been!suggested,! we!expect!them! not!to!be!
modulated!by!contextual!factors.!On!the!other!hand,!if!they!reflect!discourse-level!processing!difficulty,!we!
expect!that!they!would!attenuate!or!disappear!in!felicitous!contexts.!
!
3. Experiment*
3.1. Stimuli*
The!sentences!in!(6)!and!(7)!show!a!sample!set!of!experimental!context!and!target!sentences,!in!which!
two!factors!are!manipulated:!WORD!ORDER!(SOV/OSV)!✕!GIVENNESS!(New-Given/Given-New).!
!
!

!
!
6!
(6)!
Kooban-ni!
(a)!Yoshida-san-ga!/(b)!Kimura-san-ga! !
imasu.!
!
police.box-in!
Yoshida-Mr-NOM!/!Kimura-Mr-NOM!
be!
!
“(a)!Mr.!Yoshida!/(b)!Mr.!Kimura!is!in!the!police!box.”!
!
(7)!
!
NP1!
ADV1!
ADV2!
NP2!
V!
AUX!
!
a.!SOV:!
Yoshida-san-ga!
kinoo-no!
yoru!
Kimura-san-o!
yurushita!
rashii.!
!
!
Yoshida-Mr-NOM!
yesterday-GEN!
night!
Kimura-Mr-ACC!
forgave! !
seem!
!
!
“It!seems!that!Mr.!Yoshida!forgave!Mr.!Kimura!last!night.”!
!
b.!OSV:!
Kimura-san-o!
kinoo-no!
yoru!
Yoshida-san-ga!
yurushita!
rashii.!
!
!
Kimura-Mr-ACC!
yesterday-GEN!
night!
Yoshida-Mr-NOM! !
forgave! !
seem!
!
Givenness!of!arguments!was!manipulated!by!presenting!an!existential!sentence,!such!as!in!(6),!which!
referred!to!either!the!S!or!O!of!the!target!sentences.!SOV!can!be!used!in!a!wider!range!of!contexts,!allowing!
given-new!or!new-given!orders.!Thus,!(7a)!did!not! violate!an!information!order!requirement.! OSV,! on!the!
other!hand,!is!a!marked!word!order;!thus,!it!is!used!felicitously!when!O!is!discourse-given!information.!The!
lead-in!sentence!in! (6b)!made!the!OSV! in! (7b)!felicitous!because! it! mentioned!O’s! referent;! thus,! the! OS!
order! corresponded!to! the! given-new! order.! In! contrast,! the!lead-in! sentence!in! (6a)! did!not! establish! a!
supportive!context!for!an!appropriate!use!of!OSV!in!(7b).2!
The!NPs!of!the!target!sentences!were!common!family!names!with!no!bias!for!particular!thematic!roles.!
Temporal! adverbs! intervened! between! the! S! and! the! O! to! increase! the!memory! cost.! These! NPs! and!
temporal! adverbs! were!used! four! times! across! items,! so! any! ERP! difference!was!not! due! to! lexical!
differences!between!conditions.!Verbs! were! followed! by! the! modal!auxiliary!“rashii”! (seem)! to! avoid! the!
wrap-up!effect!at!the!V.! One!hundred!twenty!sets!of!experimental!stimuli!were! distributed!into!four!lists,!
according!to!a!Latin!square!design,!so!no!participant!read!more!than!one!sentence!from!the!same!set.!The!
lists!were!counterbalanced!across!the!participants.! !
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2!One! might! wonder! whether! repeating! proper! names! in! the! context! and! the! target! sentences! sounds!
unnatural!because!they!are!discourse-old!information.!However,!Tsuchiya!et!al.!(2015)!reported!that!native!
Japanese!speakers!overwhelmingly!preferred!the!use!of!referential!nouns!(e.g.!definite!NPs)!to!pronouns!in!
the! narrative! telling! task,! unlike! in! English,! in! which! pronouns! are! preferred! to! refer! to! a! discourse-old!
referent.!Hence,!the! repeated!use!of!proper!names!is!not! problematic! in!Japanese.!However,!because!the!
preceding!context!renders!an!NP! a! topic! of! a! discourse,! marking! it! with! a! nominative!or!accusative!case!
instead!of!a!topic!marker!(-wa)$is!not!frequent!in!Japanese.!However,!Hirotani!and!Schumacher!(2011)!did!
not! observe! any! difference! between! the! nominative! and! the! topic! S! when! it! was! mentioned! in! the!
preceding!context.!Thus,!it!is!unlikely!that!this!affected!our!results.!Furthermore,!the!use!of!a!topic!marker!
“-wa”! for! discourse-given! NPs! is! problematic! for! the! purpose! of! the! current! experiment! because! this!
induces!an!S-O!ambiguity.!Assuming!that!the!native!Japanese!speakers!disambiguate!ambiguous!sentences!
into!canonical!sentences,! O-waGIVENS-gaNEWV! (O-TOP!S-NOM!V)! should!be!temporarily!analysed!as! a!canonical!
SOV!sentence!until!encountering! S.!Accordingly,!such!a!sentence!should!not!elicit!a!SLAN!effect,!making!it!
impossible!to!examine!how!it!is!affected!by!discourse-level!information.!

!
!
7!
3.2. Prediction*
The!present!study!is! interested!in! two!types!of!ERP!effects,!namely,!sustained!left!anterior!negativity!
(SLAN)! and! P600.! SLAN! has! been! observed! between! the! filler! and! its! original! position! in! scrambled!
sentences!(Hagiwara!et! al.,!2007;!Matzke,!Mai,!Nager,!Rüsseler,(&(Münte,(2002;( Ueno(&(Kluender,( 2003),!
wh-questions! (Fiebach!et!al.,!2001;! Phillips,! Kazanina,! &! Abada,! 2005),! and! post-nominal!relative! clauses!
(King%&%Kutas,%1995;%Müller,%King,%&%Kutas,%1997).!Previous!studies!have!proposed!that!it!is!an!index!of!the!
working!memory!load!to!actively!maintain!the!filler!in!working!memory!(Hagiwara!et!al.,!2007;!King!&!Kutas,!
1995;!Kluender(&(Kutas,(1993;( Matzke(et(al.,(2002;(Müller(et(al.,( 1997;( Phillips( et( al.,(2005).!If! this! is! the!
case,!we!expect!that!SLAN!would!not!be!modulated!by!givenness!(see!Discussion).!On!the!other!hand,!if!it!
reflects! a! discourse-level! processing! cost!to! accommodate! the! discourse! requirement! encoded! by!
non-canonical!word!orders,!we!predict!that!a!felicitous!context!ameliorates!it,!leading!to!SLAN’s!lack.!
P600!has!been!observed!at!the!gap!position!of!filler-gap!dependency!and!proposed!to!reflect!syntactic!
processing!difficulty!to!associate!a!filler!with!its!original!position!(Kaan,!Harris,!Gibson,!&!Holcomb,!2000).!
We!expect!no!givenness!effect!if!the!P600!reflects!a!syntactic!integration!difficulty.!However,!if!it!relates!to!
a!discourse-level!processing!cost,!we!predict!a!P600!in!the!infelicitous!but!not!in!the!felicitous!context.! !
In!addition!to!these!ERP!effects,!we!expect!a!reduced!N400!effect!for!given!NPs!at!NP1!(S!of!SOV!and!
O!of! OSV)!and!NP2! (O! of!SOV!and! S! of!OSV)!since!N400! has!been!known!to!be!sensitive!to! priming!effect!
(Kutas!&! Federmeier,! 2011;! Kutas! &! Van! Petten,! 1988).! Although!it!forms! part! of! the! result! of!statistical!
analyses!reported!below,!this!effect!is!of!no!interest!for!the!present!purpose.! !
!
3.3. Procedure*
Stimuli!were!presented!in!the!centre! of! the! monitor! in! rand om! order,! using!Presentation!ver.!17.0.!
(Neurobehavioral!Systems).!At!the!beginning!of!each!trial,!a!fixation!was!presented!for!1000!ms,!followed!
by!a! blank! screen! for! 300!ms.! A! lead-in! context!in! (6)! was! presented! in! its! entirety! for! 2000! ms! with! an!
inter-stimulus! interval! (ISI)! of! 200! ms.! After!that,! each! phrase!of!the! target!sentences! was! presented!for!
700!ms!with!200!ms!ISI.!A!comprehension!task!was!administered!at!the!end!of!each!trial!to!check!whether!
our!participants!understood!sentences!correctly.!Participants!were!required!to!answer!questions!(e.g.!Is$it$
Mr.$Yoshida$who$forgave$Mr.$Kimura?),!by!pressing!the!“YES”!or!“NO”!button!on!the!response!pad!(Cedrus,!
RB-740).! Prior! to! the! main! experiment,! twelve!practice! trials! were! completed! to! familiarise! participants!
with!the!experimental!procedure.!
!
3.4. Electrophysiological*recording*
!EEGs!were!recorded!from!19!Ag!electrodes!(QuickAmp,!Brain!Products)!located!at!Fp1/2,!F3/4,!C3/4,!
P3/4,! O1/2,! F7/8,! T7/8,! P7/8,! Fz,! Cz,! and! Pz! according! to! the ! international! 10–20! system! (Jasper.! 1958).!
Additional!electrodes!were!placed! below!and!to! the!left!of! the!left!eye! to!monitor!horizontal! and!vertical!
eye!movements.!The!online!reference!was!set!to!the!average!of!all!electrodes!and!EEGs!were!re-referenced!

!
!
8!
offline!to!the!average!value!of!the!earlobes.!The!impedances!of!all!electrodes!were!maintained!at!less!than!
10!kΩ!throughout!the!experiment.!The!EEGs! were!amplified!with!a!bandpass!of!DC! to!200!Hz,!digitised!at!
1000!Hz.! !
!
3.5. Electrophysiological*data*analysis*
!Trials! with! large! artefacts! (exceeding! ±80! µV)! were! automatically! removed! from! the! analysis.!Two!
types! of! analyses! were!conducted! following! previous! studies! on! the! processing!of!filler-gap!dependency,!
namely,!cumulative!multi-word!and!single-word!analyses!(Fiebach!et!al.,!2001;!King!&!Kutas,!1995;!Phillips!
et!al.,!2005;!Ueno! &!Kluender,!2003,!2009).!The!cumulative!multi-word!analysis!examined!SLAN!from! NP1!
to!NP2.! The!baseline!was!set!to!100!ms!prior!to!the!onset!of!NP1.!The!SLAN!was!expected!to!appear!after!
lexical!access!to!NP1!was!completed!(i.e.!approximately!300–500!ms).!Hence,!for!NP1,!SLAN’s!presence!was!
examined! to! compare! the! mean! amplitude! of! 500–900! ms.! The! time-window! of! 300–500! ms! was! also!
tested!to!examine!a!priming!effect,!although!it!is!not!of!interest.!For!the! following!two!adverbs,!the!SLAN!
was!assessed!by!calculating!the!mean!amplitude!from!100!ms!after!the!onset!of!each!region!to!the!end!of!
the!epoch!(100–900!ms)!(cf.!Lau!&!Liao,!2017;!Phillips!et!al.,!2005).! !
The!single-word!analysis!examined!a!P600!at!NP2,!which!has!been!associated!with!the!integration!cost.!
The!V!region!was!also!examined! because! some! previous! studies! reported!a!P600!for! non-canonical! word!
orders.! The! baseline! was! set! to! 100! ms! prior!to! the! onset! of! each! phrase.! The! ERPs! were! quantified! by!
calculating! the! mean! amplitude! for! each! participant! relative! to! the! baseline! using!three!time! windows:!
300–500!ms,! 500–700!ms,!and!700–900!ms.! All!EEGs!were!filtered!offline!using!a!10!Hz!low-pass!filter!for!
presentation!purposes.!
!All!statistical!analyses! were! conducted! separately!at!the!midline!(Fz,!Cz,!and!Pz),!lateral!(F3/4,!C3/4,!
and! P3/4),! and! temporal! (Fp1/2,! F7/8,! T7/8,! P7/8,! and! O1/2)! arrays.! The! midline! analysis! consisted! of!
repeated!measures!ANOVAs!with!three!within-group! factors:!WORD!ORDER!(WO)!(SOV/OSV)!×!GIVENNESS!
(Given-New/New-Given)! ×!ANTERIORITY.!The! lateral! and! temporal! analyses! involved! four! within-group!
factors:! WO!×!GIVENNESS!×!HEMISPHERE!(left/right)! ×!ANTERIORITY.!When! an!interaction! occurred!
between!WO!×!GIVENNESS,!post!hoc!analyses!were!conducted!to!examine!the!effect!of!WO!at!each!level!of!
GIVENNESS! and! that! of! GIVENNESS! at! each! level! of! WO.!When! WO! and/or! GIVENNESS! interacted! with!
topographic! factors! (ANTERIORITY/HEMISPHERE),! post! hoc! analyses! were! conducted! at! each! level!of!
topographic!factors!(e.g.!front,!central,!and!posterior).!The!Greenhouse-Geisser!correction!was!applied!for!
all!effects!involving! more! than! one! degree!of!freedom!(Greenhouse!&! Geisser,!1959).!In!these!cases,!the!
original!degrees!of!freedom!and!the!corrected!p-value!were!reported.! !
!
3.6. Participants*
Sixteen!native!Japanese! speakers!were!recruited!from!Tohoku!University!(five!females!and!11!males,!
M! =!20.6,! SD! =!1.6,! range:! 19.2–24.3).! All! participants! were! classified! as! right-handed! based! on! the!

!
!
9!
Edinburgh!handedness!inventory!(Oldfield,!1971),!and!three!of!them!had!a!left-handed!family!member.!All!
participants!had! normal! or! corrected-to-normal!vision!and!no!history! of! reading!disability!or! neurological!
disorders.!This!study!was!approved!by!the!Ethics!Committee! of! the! Graduate! School! of! Arts! and! Letters,!
Tohoku!University.!Written!informed!consent!was!obtained!from!all!participants!prior!to!the!experiment,!
and!they!were!paid!for!their!participation.! !
!
3.7. Results*
3.7.1. Behavioural*data*
The! mean! accuracy! of! the! comprehension! question! task! was! 87%! (SNEWOGIVENV:! 87.9%,! SGIVENONEWV:!
87.5%,!ONEWSGIVENV:!85.2%,!OGIVENSNEWV:!87.5%).!The!repeated-measures!ANOVA!showed!no!significant!main!
effect!or!interaction!in!subject!and!item!analyses!(all!ps!>!0.10).! !
!
3.7.2. Electrophysiological*data*
Multi-word*cumulative*analysis*
Figure!1!shows!the!grand!average!ERP! from! the! onset! of! NP1!to! that! of! NP2!of!the!target!sentence.!
Visual!inspection!of! the! graph! suggests!a!striking!difference! between!OSV!at!the!left!frontal!sites,! with!a!
larger!negativity!for!ONEWSGIVENV.!
!

!
!
10!
!
Figure!1.!Grand!average!ERPs!from!NP1!to!NP2.!(Boldface!in!the!legend!indicates!discourse-given!NPs)!
!
Table!1.!Statistical!results!of!the!cumulative!analysis.!
!
Note:!+:!p!<!.10,!*:!p!<!.05,!**:!p!<!.01,!***:!p!<!.005!
!
In!the!300–500!ms!time-window!of!NP1,!the!main!effect!of! GIVENNESS!was!significant!at!all!arrays,!
showing!a!larger!N400!for!the!new!NPs!compared!to!the!given!NPs,!due!to!priming!effect!(Table!1).!
In! the! 500–900! ms! time-window!of! NP1,! the! interaction! of! WO! ×!GIVENNESS! ×!ANTERIORITY!was!
marginally! significant! at! the! temporal!array.! The! post! hoc! analyses!revealed! that! ONEWSGIVENV! showed! a!
larger!anterior!negativity!than!SNEWOGIVENV!(Fp1/2:!F(1,!15)!=!15.41,!p!<!0.01;!F7/8:!F(1,!15)!=!6.82,!p!<!0.05),!
whereas!OGIVENSNEWV!did!not!show!a!negativity!compared!to!SGIVENONEWV.!Furthermore,!ONEWSGIVENV!showed!
!!NP1:!300–500!ms!!!!!!!NP1:!500–900!ms!!!!!!ADV1:!100–900!ms!!ADV2:!100–900!ms!!!!NP1:!300–500!ms!!!!!!NP1:!500–900!ms!!!!!!ADV1:!100–900!ms!!!!ADV2:!100–900!ms!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!New-Given:!!!!OSV!!minus!!!SOV!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Given-New:!!!!OSV!!!minus!!!SOV!
2.0
−2.0
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!SOV:!!!!New-Given!!minus!!!Given-New!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!OSV:!!!!New-Given!!minus!!!Given-New
!!NP1:!300–500!ms!!!!!!!NP1:!500–900!ms!!!!!!ADV1:!100–900!ms!!ADV2:!100–900!ms!!!!NP1:!300–500!ms!!!!!!NP1:!500–900!ms!!!!!!ADV1:!100–900!ms!!!!ADV2:!100–900!ms!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2.0
−2.0
SNEWOGIVENVMr.Yoshida-NOM! !yesterday-GEN !night!!!Mr.Kimura-ACC !forgave! !seem!
SGIVENONEWVMr.Yoshida-NOM9 !yesterday-GEN !night!!!Mr.Kimura-ACC !forgave! !seem!
ONEWSGIVENVMr.Kimura-ACC! !yesterday-GEN !night!!!Mr.Yoshida-NOM9 !forgave! !seem!
OGIVENSNEWVMr.Kimura-ACC9 !yesterday-GEN !night!!!Mr.Yoshida-NOM! !forgave! !seem!
-11!
5!
Fp1!
NP1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!ADV1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!ADV2
-11!
5!
F7!
-11!
5!
F3!
-11!
5!
Fz!
-11!
5!
T7!
-11!
5!
C3!
-11!
5!
Cz!
NP1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!ADV1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!ADV2
Word%O rder% (WO) 1.45 1.11 0.66 0.82 0.83 0.01 0.52 1.14 0.65 0.36 0.16 0.02
Givenness%(G) 32.31 *** 33.56 *** 50.74 *** 2.67 3.69 3.35 +7.35 *6.95 *5.65 *6.64 *6.12 *3.28 +
WO%✕%Anteriority%(Ant) 0.02 0.26 0.34 0.30 1.81 1.55 0.06 1.11 0.74 0.04 1.43 0.86
G%✕%Ant 0.14 0.21 0.53 4.03 +10.88 *** 3.48 +1.34 2.37 0.31 1.45 2.46 0.45
WO%✕%G 1.25 0.98 1.68 0.40 0.29 1.79 0.55 0.75 0.30 1.01 1.32 0.01
WO%✕%G%✕%Ant 0.67 0.03 0.23 2.19 0.56 2.79 +1.25 0.65 5.38 *0.28 0.54 1.58
WO%✕%Hemisphere%(Hem) 0.88 0.88 0.06 1.37 </0.01 3.09 +0.01 3.57
G%✕%Hem 0.04 1.50 0.21 1.45 0.73 1.28 1.15 0.49
WO%✕%Ant%✕%Hem 2.34 1.35 1.20 1.05 1.19 0.39 0.89 0.54
G%✕%Ant%✕%Hem 0.06 0.56 1.44 0.47 2.48 0.63 2.08 1.08
WO%✕%G%✕%Hem 0.27 0.61 0.26 </0.01 1.07 0.03 0.11 </0.01
WO%✕%G%✕%Ant%✕%Hem 0.81 0.18 0.50 0.11 0.51 1.08 0.75 0.77
Adv2:%100–900%ms
Midline
Lateral
Tem por al
NP1:%300–500%ms
NP1:%500–900%ms
Adv1:%100–900%ms
Midline
Lateral
Tem por al
Midline
Lateral
Tem por al
Midline
Lateral
Tem por al

!
!
11!
a!larger!anterior! negativity!than!OGIVENSNEWV!(Fp1/2:!F(1,!15)!=! 20.91,! p!<! 0.01;! F7/8:! F(1,! 15)! =! 15.36,! p!<!
0.01),! whereas!the!two!SOV!conditions!did! not! differ.! The! interaction! of! GIVENNESS! ×!ANTERIORITY!was!
also!significant!at!the!lateral!array!and!marginally!significant!at! the!midline!and!temporal!arrays,!due!to!a!
GIVENNESS!effect!at!the!frontal!sites!(Fz:!F(1,!15)!=!10.97,!p!<!0.01;!F3/4:!F(1,!15)!=!9.83,!p!<!0.01;!C3/4:!F(1,!
15)!=!4.29,!p!=!0.05;!Fp1/2:!F(1,!15)!=!6.97,!p!<!0.05;!Fp7/8:!F(1,!15)!=!10.19,!p!<!0.01).!
At! ADV1,! the! three-way! interaction! of! WO! ×!GIVENNESS! ×!ANTERIORITY!was! significant!at! the!
temporal! array.! Post! hoc! analyses! revealed! that! the! anterior! negativity! continued! to! ADV1! in! the!
ONEWSGIVENV;! ONEWSGIVENV! showed! a! larg er! anterior!negativity!than! SNEWOGIVENV! (Fp1/2 :! F(1,! 15)! =! 3.73,! p!=!
0.07),! whereas! OGIVENSNEWV! did! not.! Furthermore,! ONEWSGIVENV! showed! a! larger! anterior! negativity! than!
OGIVENSNEWV!(Fp1/2:!F(1,!15)!=!11.57,!p!<!0.01).!The!main!effect! of! GIVENNESS!was!also!significant,!with!a!
larger!negativity!for!the!new-given!conditions!compared!to!that!of!the!given-new!conditions.!
At!ADV2,!the!only!significant!effect!was!the!main!effect!of!GIVENNESS,!showing!a!larger!negativity!for!
the!new-given!conditions!than!the!given-new!conditions.! !
!
3.7.3. Single-word*analyses*
The*NP2*
Figure!2!shows!the!grand!average!ERP!of!NP2!of!the! target! sentence.!Visual!inspection!of! the! graph!
suggests!that!ONEWSGIVENV!showed!a!posterior!positivity,!but!OGIVENSNEWV!did!not.!
!

!
!
12!
!
Figure!2.!Grand!average!ERPs!at!NP2.! !
!
-7#
5#
P3#
-7#
5#
Fp1#
-7#
5#
Fp2#
-7#
5#
F7#
-7#
5#
F3#
-7#
5#
Fz#
-7#
5#
F4#
-7#
5#
F8#
-7#
5#
T7#
-7#
5#
C3#
-7#
5#
Cz#
-7#
5#
C4#
-7#
5#
T8#
-7#
5#
P7#
-7#
5#
Pz#
-7#
5#
P4#
-7#
5#
P8#
-7#
5#
O1#
-7#
5#
O2#
SNEWOGIVENVMr.Yoshida-NOM# #yesterday-GEN #night# #Mr.Kimura-ACC #forgave# #seem
SGIVENONEWVMr.Yoshida-NOM##yesterday-GEN #night# #Mr.Kimura-ACC #forgave# #seem
ONEWSGIVENVMr.Kimura-ACC# #yesterday-GEN #night #Mr.Yoshida-NOM##forgave# #seem
OGIVENSNEWVMr.Kimura-ACC##yesterday-GEN #night #Mr.Yoshida-NOM# #forgave# #seem
####300–500#ms#######500–700#ms########700–900#ms###########300–500#ms#########500–700#ms##########700–900#ms#
##############New-Given:####OSV##minus###SOV#############################################Given-New:####OSV###minus###SOV#
2.0
−2.0
########SOV:####New-Given##minus###Given-New###################################OSV:####New-Given##minus###Given-New
####300–500#ms#######500–700#ms########700–900#ms###########300–500#ms#########500–700#ms##########700–900#ms#
2.0
−2.0

!
!
13!
Table!2.!Statistical!results!for!NP2.!
!
Note:!+:!p!<!.10,!*:!p!<!.05,!**:!p!<!.01,!***:!p!<!.005!
!
In!300–500!ms,!the!main!effect!of!GIVENNESS!was!significant!in!all!arrays,!due!to!attenuated!N400!for!
the!given!NPs!compared!to!the!new!NPs!(Table!2).3!The!effect!of!GIVENNESS!interacted!with!ANTERIORITY!
at!the! temporal!array,!due! to!a!significant!GIVENNESS!effect!except!Fp1/2!(F7/8:!F(1,!15)!=! 6.66,!p!<!0.05;!
T7/8:!F(1,!15)!=!9.95,!p!<!0.01;!P7/8:!F(1,!15)!=!13.16,!p!<!0.01;!O1/2:!F(1,!15)!=!11.10,!p!<!0.01).!The!effect!
of!WO!×!GIVENNESS!×!ANTERIORITY!was!marginal,!which!reflected!a!significant!GIVENNESS!effect!only!at!
OSV!(P7/8:! F(1,!15)!=!16.14,!p!<! 0.01;!O1/2:!F(1,! 15)!=!13.68,!p!<! 0.01)!and!a! significant!WO!effect! only!at!
the! new-given! condition!(P7/8:! F(1,! 15)! =! 6.20,! p!<! 0.05;! O1/2:! F(1,! 15)! =! 6.83,! p!<! 0.05).! These! results!
suggest!ONEWSGIVENV!showed!an!early!positivity!compared!to!OGIVENSNEWV!and!SNEWOGIVENV.!
In!500–700!ms,!the!interaction!of!WO!×!GIVENNESS!×!ANTERIORITY!was!significant!at!the!lateral!and!
temporal!arrays!and!marginally!significant!at!the!midline!array.!Post!hoc!analyses!showed!a!significant!WO!
effect!only! at!the!new-given!condition! at!the!posterior! sites!(Pz:!F(1,! 15)! =!5.67,!p!<!0.05;! P3/4:!F(1,!15)!=!
5.26,! p!<! 0.05;! P7/8:! F(1,! 15)! =! 5.30,! p!<! 0.05;! O1/2:! F(1,! 15)! =! 7.19,! p!<! 0.05).! At! OSV,! the! effect! of!
GIVENNESS!was!significant!or!marginally!significant!at!the!posterior!sites!(Pz:!F(1,!15)!=!5.44,!p!<!0.05;!P3/4:!
F(1,!15)! =!5.62,!p!<! 0.05;!O1/2:!F(1,!15)!=!4.02,!p!=!0.06).! These!results!indicate!that! ONEWSGIVENV!showed!a!
posterior!positivity!compared!to!SNEWOGIVENV!and!OGIVENSNEWV.! !
In! sum,! a! robust! N400! reduction! was! observed! for! the! given! NPs!at! 300–500! ms.! Importantly,!
ONEWSGIVENV!elicited!an!early!larger!positivity!than!SNEWOGIVENV,!whereas!OGIVENSNEWV!did!not!elicit!any!effect!
compared!to!SGIVENONEWV.! !
!
The*verb*
Figure!3!shows!the!grand!average!ERP!of!V!of!the!target!sentence.!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
3!In!single-word!analyses,!the!ERP!of!the!baseline!time! window!was!analysed!to!ensure!that!ERP! difference!was!not!
induced!as!a!result!of!the!baseline!correction!procedure.!The!results!reveal!no!significant!main!effect!or!interaction!at!
the!baseline!time!window!when!the!ERPs!were!time-locked!to!the!onset!of!the!previous!region.! !
Word% Order %(WO ) 0.12 0.15 0.28 0.38 0.25 0.51 0.31 0.53 0.12
Givenness%(G) 25.48 *** 25.25 *** 9.25 ** 1.39 1.33 0.01 0.46 0.30 1.11
WO%✕%Anteriority%(Ant) 3.58 5.12 *3.19 +1.07 1.41 0.53 0.10 0.28 0.15
G%✕%Ant 0.65 1.07 3.61 *0.16 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.37 0.40
WO%✕%G 2.18 2.10 1.72 3.31 +2.95 1.80 1.21 1.18 </0.01
WO%✕%G%✕%Ant 2.00 3.23 +2.96 +3.61 +4.41 *5.37 *0.48 1.69 3.58 *
WO%✕%Hemisphere%(Hem) 0.01 0.90 1.64 2.33 0.02 0.20
G%✕%Hem 0.22 1.62 0.36 2.65 0.83 2.43
WO%✕%Ant%✕%Hem 0.08 1.14 0.30 1.33 0.13 0.19
G%✕%Ant%✕%Hem 0.37 1.88 0.22 1.87 0.17 1.60
WO%✕%G%✕%Hem 1.24 0.53 1.18 </0.01 1.10 1.11
WO%✕%G%✕%Ant%✕%Hem 0.02 0.57 0.07 0.17 0.35 0.76
300–500%ms
500–700%ms
700–900%ms
Tem po ra l
Midline
Lateral
Tem po ra l
Midline
Lateral
Tem po ra l
Midline
Lateral

!
!
14!
!
Figure!3.!Grand!average!ERPs!at!V.! !
!
Table!3.!Statistical!results!for!V.!
-7#
5#
Fp1#
-7#
5#
Fp2#
-7#
5#
F7#
-7#
5#
F3#
-7#
5#
Fz#
-7#
5#
F4#
-7#
5#
F8#
-7#
5#
T7#
-7#
5#
C3#
-7#
5#
Cz#
-7#
5#
C4#
-7#
5#
T8#
-7#
5#
P7#
-7#
5#
P3#
-7#
5#
Pz#
-7#
5#
P4#
-7#
5#
P8#
-7#
5#
O1#
-7#
5#
O2#
SNEWOGIVENVMr.Yoshida-NOM# #yesterday-GEN #night# #Mr.Kimura-ACC #forgave# #seem
SGIVENONEWVMr.Yoshida-NOM##yesterday-GEN #night# #Mr.Kimura-ACC #forgave# #seem
ONEWSGIVENVMr.Kimura-ACC# #yesterday-GEN #night #Mr.Yoshida-NOM##forgave# #seem
OGIVENSNEWVMr.Kimura-ACC##yesterday-GEN #night #Mr.Yoshida-NOM# #forgave# #seem
##############New-Given:####OSV##minus###SOV#############################################Given-New:####OSV###minus###SOV#
#####300–500#ms#######500–700#ms###########700–900#ms###########300–500#ms#########500–700#ms##########700–900#ms#
2.0
−2.0
########SOV:####New-Given##minus###Given-New###################################OSV:####New-Given##minus###Given-New
#####300–500#ms#######500–700#ms###########700–900#ms###########300–500#ms#########500–700#ms##########700–900#ms#
2.0
−2.0

!
!
15!
!
Note:!+:!p!<!.10,!*:!p!<!.05,!**:!p!<!.01,!***:!p!<!.005!
!
In!300–500!ms,!a!significant!main!effect!of!GIVENNESS!was!observed!in!the!midline!and!lateral!arrays,!
showing!that!the!new-given!order!enhanced! an!N400!amplitude!compared! to!the!given-new!order!(Table!
3).!GIVENNESS!interacted! with! ANTERIORITY!in! all! arrays,! reflecting! that!the!negativity!for!the! new-given!
conditions!was!distributed!at!the! fronto-central!sites!(Fz:! F(1,! 15)!=!9.90,!p!<!0.01;! Cz:$ F(1,!15)!=!7.40,!p!<!
0.05;!F3/4:!F(1,!15)!=!9.04,!p!<!0.01;!C3/4:!F(1,!15)!=!4.46,!p!<!0.05;!F7/8:!F(1,!15)!=!7.08,!p!<!0.05;!T7/8:!F(1,!
15)!=!6.91,!p!<!0.05).! !
The! interaction! of! GIVENNESS!×!ANTERIORITY!was! significant! at! the! lateral! array! and! marginally!
significant! at! the! midline! array! at!the! 500–700!time-window,! due! to! a! GIVENNESS!effect! at! the!
fronto-central!sites!(Fz:!F(1,!15)!=!3.76,!p!=!0.07;!Cz:!F(1,!15)!=!6.07,!p!<!0.05;!F3/4:!F(1,!15)!=!3.91,!p!=!0.06).!
In!700–900!ms,!the!main!effect!of!WO!was!marginally!significant,!showing!that!OSV!elicited!a!positivity!
compared! to! SOV.! For! the! same! reason,! the! interaction! of! WO! and! ANTERIORITY!was! significant! at! the!
lateral! array,! with!a! significant! effect! at! P3/4! and! a! marginally!significant!effect!at!C3/4!(P3/4:!F(1,! 15)! =!
7.67,!p!<!0.05;!C3/4:!F(1,!15)!=!4.06,!p!=!0.06).!WO!did!not!interact!with!GIVENNESS!in!any!array.!However,!
the!planned!comparison!between!SOV!and!OSV!conditions! showed!a!positivity!in!the!new-given!condition!
(Midline:!F(1,!15)! =!4.80,!p$ <!0.05;!Lateral:!F(1,!15)!=!6.03,!p$<!0.05;! Temporal:! Lateral:! F(1,!15)!=! 4.72,!p$<!
0.05),!but! not! in! the! given-new! condition!(Midline:! F(1,! 15)! =!0.41,!p$ >! 0.10;! Lateral:! F(1,! 15)! =!0.45,!p$ >!
0.10;!Temporal:!F(1,!15)!=!0.15,!p$>!0.10).! !
Overall,!the!new-given!conditions!(SNEWOGIVENV!and!ONEWSGIVENV)!elicited!a!larger!N400!effect!compared!
to! the! given-new! conditions! (SGIVENONEWV! and! OGIVENSNEWV).! ONEWSGIVENV! exhibited! a! posterior! positivity!
compared!to!SNEWOGIVENV!at!the!late!time-window.! !
!
4. Discussion*
The! present! ERP! study! aimed! to!elucidate!the! processing! difficulties!of!syntactic!complexity!and!an!
infelicitous! use! of! OSV.! The! result! showed! an! interaction! of! word! order! and! givenness!of! arguments.!
ONEWSGIVENV!elicited!SLAN!from!O!to!S!compared!to!SNEWOGIVENV.! Importantly,! however,!OGIVENSNEWV!did!not!
exhibit!SLAN!compared!to!SGIVENONEWV.!At!NP2,!ONEWSGIVENV! elicited!a!significant!P600! effect!compared!to!
SNEWOGIVENV.!OGIVENSNEWV,!on! the! other! hand,! did! not! show! a! P600!effect!compared!to!SGIVENONEWV.!These!
results!are!discussed!in!the!following!sections.! !
Word% Order %(WO ) 0.99 0.97 0.69 0.96 1.11 0.65 3.77 +4.45 +3.40 +
Givenness%(G) 6.16 *4.80 *2.98 4.04 +2.96 2.13 2.40 1.15 1.50
WO%✕%Anteriority%(Ant) 0.45 0.80 0.20 1.00 2.62 0.84 0.99 4.06 *1.55
G%✕%Ant 6.08 *6.36 ** 3.19 *3.50 +4.12 *0.92 4.95 *8.52 ** 2.27
WO%✕%G 0.05 0.02 </0.01 0.11 0.02 </0.01 1.65 1.29 1.04
WO%✕%G%✕%Ant 1.00 0.43 0.02 0.75 0.02 0.21 0.85 0.27 0.15
WO%✕%Hemisphere%(Hem) </0.01 0.93 0.09 1.05 0.88 0.80
G%✕%Hem 0.81 0.91 0.02 0.68 0.10 0.17
WO%✕%Ant%✕%Hem 1.19 0.53 1.38 0.68 1.07 1.36
G%✕%Ant%✕%Hem 0.04 2.70 *0.07 1.87 0.03 1.50
WO%✕%G%✕%Hem 0.13 1.09 1.29 </0.01 0.59 </0.01
WO%✕%G%✕%Ant%✕%Hem 0.19 1.67 0.21 1.36 0.05 1.12
300–500%ms
500–700%ms
700–900%ms
Tem po ra l
Midline
Lateral
Tem po ra l
Midline
Lateral
Tem po ra l
Midline
Lateral

!
!
16!
!
4.1. SLAN*effect*
ONEWSGIVENV! showed! a! SLAN!effect!from! O! to! S,! in! keeping!with! the! results! of! Ueno! and!Kluender!
(2003),! which! presented! OSV! without!context.! However,! OGIVENSNEWV! did! not! show! a! comparable! SLAN!
effect.!One!may!view!this!difference!between!ONEWSGIVENV!and!OGIVENSNEWV!as!attributable!to!the!number!of!
referents!presented!to!participants!by!the!point!of!the!NP1.!In!the! new-given! order,!the!participants!read!
two!NPs!(i.e.!an!NP! in!the!context!and! an! NP1)!by!the!NP1.!In!contrast,!only! an!NP!was!presented!at! this!
position!in!the!given-new!order.!If!this!difference!affects!SLAN’s! amplitude,!then!we!expect!only!the!main!
effect!of!GIVENNESS.!This!prediction!cannot!explain!an!interaction!between!WO!and!GIVENNESS.!
The!question!is!why!the! processing!reflected!by!the!SLAN!was!costly!in!the!infelicitous!but!not!in!the!
felicitous! context.! Previous! studies! on! long-distance! dependency!formation!have! argued! that!the! SLAN!
effect!reflects!a!working!memory!load!of!actively!storing! a! filler,!such! as!a!head!noun!of! a! relative! clause!
and!a!fronted!O!(Hagiwara!et!al.,!2007;!King!&! Kutas,!1995;!Kluender!&!Kutas,' 1993;'Matzke' et' al.,' 2002;'
Müller&et& al.,& 1997;&Phillips& et&al.,&2005).! If! we!maintain! this! functional! interpretatio n,! SLAN’s! lack! in! the!
felicitous! context! implies!that! a! discourse! representation! ameliorates! the!cost! of! holding! a! filler!in! the!
working!memory!in!some!way.!However,!this!interpretation!is!challenged!when!we!examine!more!carefully!
SLAN’s! functional!significance.! SLAN!has! also! been! observed! for! lexico-semantically! vacuous! displaced!
constituents,! such! as! “wer”! (who-ACC)!in! Germa n! (Thomas$ asks$ himself,$ who-ACC$on$ Tuesday$ afternoon$
after$the$accident$ the$ doctor$ ___$ called$has,! Fiebach!et!al.,!2002).!Kluender!and!Kutas!(1993)! observed! a!
larger!SLAN!effect!for!a!matrix!wh-question!(Who$have$you!forgotten...!?)!than!a!yes-no!question!(Have$you$
forgotten...?),! although! they! did! not! conduct! a! cumulative! analysis.! Furthermore,! Wagers! and!Phillips!
(2009;! 2014)! argued!that! the! parser! actively! maintains! a! syntactic! category! of! a! filler! (e.g.!NP)!until!
encountering! a! gap,! while!it! releases! semantically!detailed!information! from! the! working! memory! and!
reactivates! it! after! receiving! direct! evidence! for! the! location! of! a!gap.! Given! these! findings,! a!
straightforward! interpretation! of! what! SLAN!reflects! is! the! active! maintenance! of! a! filler’s! syntactic!
category!rather!than!lexico-semantic!information.!In!this! interpretation,! it!is!not! clear!how!discourse-level!
information!alleviates! the!memory!cost!of! holding!a!filler’s!syntactic!category!unless!a!linking!hypothesis!
exists.!
Alternatively,!SLAN!may!reflect!the!process!of!manipulating!a!discourse!representation!in!memory.!In!
ONEWSGIVENV,!the!processing!cost!should!increase!when!encountering!a! discourse-new! O! because!it!has!no!
referent! in! the! preceding! context,! even! though!scrambling!presupposes! a! shared! referent!in! a! discourse!
that! directly! or! implicitly! refers! to! an! O.! Accordingly,! participants!had!to! accommodate! an!unsatisfied!
presupposition!to!build!a!coherent! discourse! representation,!probably! by! inventing!an!additional!implicit!
context!that!linked!the!context!and!the!target!sentence.!This!process!may!be!reflected!by!a!SLAN!observed!
in!ONEWSGIVENV.!The!SLAN!effect!could!be!similar!to!the!S(L)AN!effect!elicited!by!definite!NPs!and!pronoun!in!
the!context!with!two!salient!referents,!because!the!use!of!these!NPs!also!presupposes!a!salient!referent!to!

!
!
17!
which!a!speaker!intends!to!refer!(“David$had$asked$the$two$girls$to$clean$up$ their$room$before$lunchtime.$
But$one$of$the$girls$had$stayed$in$bed$all$morning,$and$the$other$had$been$on$the$phone$all$the$time.$David$
told$the$girl...”,!Nieuwland!&!Van!Berkum,!2006;!Van!Berkum,!2004;!Van!Berkum,!Brown,!&!Hagoort,!1999;!
van! Berkum! et! al.2003;! Van! Berkum,! Zwitserlood,! Bastiaansen,! Brown,! &! Hagoort,! 2004;! Van!Berkum,!
Koornneef,!Otten,!&!Nieuwland,!2007).4!In!OGIVENSNEWV,!on!the!other!hand,!the!manipulating!process!is!not!
necessary!because!the! discourse! has! already! introduced!a!referent!that!refers!to!an! O!of! OSV,! leading!to!
SLAN’s!lack!in!the!felicitous!context.! !
To! date,! the! extent! to! which! this! view! can! account! for! previous! findings! of! SLAN! effects!remains!
unclear.!To!our!knowledge,!no!ERP!experiment!examines!the!interaction!of!the!processing!of!post-nominal!
relative! clauses! by! context.! However,! given! that! a! behavioural! study!showed! that! their! processing!was!
largely!alleviated!by!the!felicitous!context!(Roland,!Mauner,!O’Meara,!&!Yun,!2012),!SLAN!could!decrease!in!
amplitude!due! to!a!felicitous!context.!Another!observation!related!to!the! present!view!is!an!LAN! effect!in!
response! to! the! matrix! question! compared!to! the! yes-no! question! (Kluender! &! Kutas,! 1993).! Since!
wh-questions,!such!as!“What$did$Mary$read?”,!presuppose!the!existence!of!an!entity!that!Mary!read!(e.g.!
Postal,!1971;!Karttunen!&!Peters,!1976),!a! wh-question!introduced! without!context! requires! receivers! to!
accommodate!this!presupposition.! Accordingly,!the!LAN!effect!in!response!to!a!wh-question!(Kluender!&!
Kutas,!1993)!could!be!accounted!for!in!terms!of!contextual!factors.!However,!more!empirical!data!needs!to!
be!accumulated!to!test!this!view.!
!
4.2. P600*effect*at*the*NP2* *
At!NP2,!ONEWSGIVENV!elicited!a!larger!posterior!positivity!compared!to!SNEWOGIVEN,!whereas!no!indication!
exists! of!a! positivity! in! response! to! OGIVENSNEWV.! The! former! result!is! consistent! with! previous! studies!on!
scrambling!in!Japanese!(Hagiwara! et!al.,!2007;!Koso!et!al.,!2007;!Ueno!&!Kluender,!2003),!as!well!as!those!
on!filler-gap! dependency! in! other! languages! (Fiebach! et! al.,!2001;!2005;!Kaan! et! al.,! 2000;! Phillips! et! al.,!
2005;!Rösler!et!al.,! 1998;! Yasunaga! et! al.,!2015;!Yano! et! al.,! 2017a,!2017b).! The! positivity! for! ONEWSGIVENV!
began!to!diverge!from!SNEWOGIVENV!earlier!than!typical!P600!effects.!This!early!peak!latency!may!be!due!to!
the!priming!effect.!When!comparing!ONEWSGIVENV! and! SNEWOGIVENV,! the! critical!noun! was! a!discourse-given!
NP.!Accordingly,! the! repetition! priming!facilitated!lexico-semantic!processing!and! the! subsequent! process!
started! earlier.! This! possibility! was!supported!by! the! observation! that! the! peak! latency! of! P600! was!
significantly!earlier!for!the!given!NPs!than!the!new!NPs!(Midline:!F!(1,!15)!=!5.24,!p!<!0.05;!Lateral:!F!(1,!15)!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
4!An! important! caveat! is! that! Nieuwland! et! al.! (2007)! found! an! increased! activation! for! a! referentially!
ambiguous!pronoun!at! the! medial!prefrontal!region,!which! is!different!from!the!left!inferior!frontal!gyrus!
that!activates!during!the!processing!of! non-canonical! word!orders!(Grewe!et!al.,! 2007;!Kinno!et!al.,! 2008;!
Kim!et!al.,!2009).!

!
!
18!
=! 6.01,! p!<! 0.05;! Temporal:! F$ (1,! 15)! =! 2.36,! p!=! 0.14).5!Importantly,! OGIVENSNEWV! did! not! show! a! larger!
positivity!even!in!the!typical!P600!time-window.!This!result!of!the!WO!by!context!interaction!is!consistent!
with!the!behavioural!result!by!Koizumi!and!Imamura!(2016).!
First,! it!is! less! likely! that! the!P600! reflects!the!revision!cost! of! a! syntactic! structure.! Because!an!
accusative!case!was!attached!to!the!displaced!O!of!experimental!sentences,!no!S-O!ambiguity!existed!in!the!
present! experiment.! Furthermore,! SLAN’s! presence! for! OSV! in! the!infe licitous! context! suggests! that! the!
parser!noticed!a!scrambled! structure! while!processing!an! adverbial!phrase!under!either!interpretation!of!
SLAN!discussed!above.!Thus,!the!P600!is!not!the!same!as!the!P600!that!has!been!observed!for!garden-path!
sentences!(Kaan!&!Swaab,!2003a,!2003b).!
Second,!Kaan!et!al.!(2000)!proposed!that!P600!reflects!a!syntactic!integration!difficulty.!If!we!hold!this!
view,! the! lack! of! the! P600! effect! suggests! the! facilitated! syntactic! integration! of! a! filler! and! its! gap.!
However,!a! question! arises!as! to!why!the!discourse!givenness!of!an!O!reduces!a!P600! effect!at! the! NP2.!
One!possibility!is!that!the!syntactic!integration!difficulty!might!correlate!with!memory!cost,!because!several!
studies!failed!to! observe! a!P600!effect!for!scrambled!sentences!in!cases!in!which!the!distance!between! a!
filler!and!its!gap!is!relatively!short.!For!instance,!Hagiwara!et!al.!(2007)!compared!the!processing!of!middle!
scrambling!with!that!of!long!scrambling,!using!the!sentences!in!(8)!below.!They!found!that!long!scrambling!
elicited!a!P600!effect!compared!to! the! canonical! condition,!whereas!middle!scrambling!did!not!(see!also!
Koizumi!and!Yasunaga,!2016).!Presumably,!when!the!parser!consumes!less!memory!cost,!it!needs!the!less!
syntactic!integration!cost.! In!the!present!case,!since!a!discourse-given! O!of!OSV!did!not!impose!a!memory!
pressure!on!the!parser,!the!parser!can!integrate!the!filler!with!the!gap!relatively!easily.!On!the!other!hand,!
a!discourse-new!O!was!difficult!to!integrate!with! the!gap!because!it!incurred!a!memory!cost!evidenced!by!
SLAN.!However,!this!conjecture!is! not!consistent!with!the!result!of! Fiebach!et!al.! (2002)!and!Phillips!et!al.!
(2005),!who!reported!a!P600!effect,!irrespective!of!the!length!between!a!filler!and!a!gap.!
!
(8)!
a.!Canonical!condition:!
!
Kaiken-de!
shacho-wa!
hisho-ga!
bengoshi-o!
!
sagashiteiru-to!
itta.!
!
meeting-at!
president-TOP!
secretary-NOM!
lawyer-ACC!
!
was.looking.for-C!
said.!
!
“At!the!meeting,!the!president!said!that!the!secretary!was!looking!for!the!lawyer.”!
!
b.!Middle-scrambled!condition:!
!
Kaiken-de!
shacho-wa!
bengoshi-oi!
hisho-ga!
ti! !
sagashiteiru-to!
itta.!
!
meeting-at!
president-TOP!
lawyer-ACC!
secretary-NOM!
!
was.looking.for-C!
said.!
!
c.!Long-scrambled!condition:!
!
Kaiken-de!
bengoshi-oi!
shacho-wa!
hisho-ga!
ti!
sagashiteiru-to!
itta.!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
5!The!mean!peak!latency!of!the!positivity!was!calculated!for!each!channel!with!the!ERP!Measurement!Tool!of!ERPLAB!
(Lopez-Calderon!&!Luck,!2014)!by!finding!a!latency!in!which!the!greatest!positivity!was!observed!between!300!to!900!
ms!of!NP2.!The!statistical!analyses!were!conducted!in!the!same!way!as!reported!in!Section!3.5.! !

!
!
19!
!
meeting-at!
lawyer-ACC!
president-TOP!
secretary-NOM!
!
was.looking.for!
said.!
!
Alternatively,! the!P600!may! reflect!a! conflict! resolution! of! different!information! types.! When!
scrambled!sentences!were!not!presented!with!a!supportive!context,!the!parser!should!have!faced!a!conflict!
between!syntactic!and! information! structures.! That! is,! syntactic! information! signals!that!the! parser! must!
reconstruct! a! filler! at! the! derived!position!into! the! original! position! to!receive!a!thematic!role.!However,!
the! information! structure! does! not! validate!that! the! filler!is! located! at! the!topic!position!because!
scrambling!yields! an! ill-motivated!new-given! order.! An! increasing! number! of! recent! ERP! studies! have!
argued! that! the! P600! is! not! a! manifestation! of! pure! syntactic! processing! difficulty! (e.g.!
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky!&!Schlesewsky,!2008;!Brouwer,!Crocker,!Venhuizen,!&!Hoeks,!2016;!Brouwer,!Fitz,!
&!Hoeks,!2012;!Kuperberg,!2007;!Vissers,!Chwilla,!&!Kolk,!2006).!Instead,!it!indexes!a!process!of!integrating!
several!types! of!information,!such!as! syntax! and!semantics.!Thus,! a!P600!likely!reflects!the!resolution!of! a!
conflict! between! syntactic! structure! and! information! structure! encoded! by! OSV.!However,! the! issue! of!
whether!the! same! process! underlies!a!P600!effect!in!other!languages!is!not!clear,! since,! for!example,!the!
pre-gap! region! of!relative!clauses!in! English! is! a! verb,! where!different! types! of! processes!should! also! be!
performed,!as!discussed!below.!
!
4.3. P600*effect*at*the*V*
At!the!V,!a!larger!P600!effect!was!observed!for!OSV!compared!to!SOV!in!the!new-given!condition.!The!
P600! at! the! V! has! been! observed! in! previous! studies! (Hagiwara! et! al.,! 2007;! Weckerly! &! Kutas,! 1999).!
Phillips! et! al.! (2005)! proposed! that! the! P600! at! the! V! reflects! “the$ syntactic$ and$ semantic$ operations$
involved$ in$ confirming$ the$ compatibility$ of$ the$ filler$ and$ the$ verb$ for$ thematic$ role$ assignment,$ and$
compositionally$interpreting$the$verb$and$its$arguments”!(Phillips!et!al.,!2005,!p.!425).!Because!this!process!
should! be! necessary!at! the! V! of!the! OSV!in! Japanese,!it! explains! a!P600! effect! for! OSV! in! the! new-given!
context.!However,!it!remains!unclear!why!OSV!in!the!given-new!context!did!not!elicit!a!similar!P600!at!V.! !
The!P600!effect!in!the!present!experiment!contradicts!with!the!previous!ERP!experiment!of! Japanese!
scrambling!that!reported! a!larger! anterior! negativity!for! OSV!than!SOV!at! the!V!(Ueno!&!Kluender,!2003).!
However,!this!AN!effect!reflects!a!wrap-up!process!that!has!often!reported!in!ERP!experiments!(Friederici!&!
Frisch,!2000;!Osterhout,!1997).!In!the!present!study,!an!auxiliary!verb!was!placed!at!the!sentence’s!end!to!
avoid!the!wrap-up!negativity!at!the!V.!As!expected,!the!wrap-up!negativity!was!observed!at!the!sentence’s!
final!region,!although!no!significant!effect!existed!between!conditions.!
!
5. Conclusion*
The!present!study!explored!the!interaction!of!syntactic!complexity!of!scrambling!and!discourse!factors!
during!Japanese!sentence!comprehension.!The!result!of!the!ERP!experiment!clearly!demonstrated!that!the!
felicitous! use! of! scrambling! alleviated!filler-gap! dependency! formation,! as!evidenced! by! a! significant!

!
!
20!
reduction! of! SLAN!and! P600! effects.!This! finding!suggests! that! the! processing! difficulty!that! has! been!
observed!for!non-canonical!word!orders!is!largely!associated!with!discourse!factors,!such!as!the!alignment!
of! discourse-old! and! discourse-new! NPs.!Nevertheless,! further! investigation! is! necessary! to! clarify!the!
functional!significance!of!SLAN!and!P600.!
!
Acknowledgements*
We!thank!anonymous!reviewers!and!the!editor!for!their!insightful!comments.!We!are!also!grateful!to!
Mineharu!Nakayama,!Ellen!Lau,!Hajime! Ono,!and!Shin! Fukuda! for!their!helpful!comments.!This! study!was!
supported!by!JSPS!KAKENHI!(#15H02603,!PI:! Masatoshi!Koizumi),!a! Grant-in-Aid!for!JSPS!Research!Fellows!
(#13J04854,!PI:!Masataka!Yano)!and!Kyushu!University!Wakaba!Project!(#30203,!PI:!Masataka!Yano).!
!
Disclosure*statement*
!No!potential!conflict!of!interest!was!reported!by!the!authors!
!
References*
Aissen,!J.!L.!(1992).!Topic!and!focus!in!Mayan.!Language,!68,!43–80.!
Bader,! M.! &! Meng,! M.! (1999).! Subject-object! ambiguities! in! German! embedded! clauses:! An!
across-the-board!comparison.!Journal$of$Psycholinguistic$Research,!28,!121–143.!
Birner,! B.! J.! &! Ward,! G.! (2009).! Information! structure! and! syntactic! structure.! Language$ and$ Linguistic$
Compass,$3,1167–1187.! !
Bock,!J.!K.!&!Warren,!R.!K.!(1985).!Conceptual!accessibility!and!syntactic!structure!in!sentence!formulation.!
Cognition,!21,!47–67.!
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky,! I.! &! Schlesewsky,! M.! (2008).! An! alternative! perspective! on! “semantic! P600”!
effects!in!language!comprehension.!Brain$Research$Reviews,!59(1),!55–73.!
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky,!I.!&!Schlesewsky,!M.!(2009a).!The!role!of!prominence!information!in!the!real-time!
comprehension! of! transitive! constructions:! A! cross-linguistic! approach.! Language$ and$ Linguistics$
Compass,!3,!19–58.!
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky,! I.! &! Schlesewsky,! M.! (2009b).! Processing$ syntax$ and$morphology:$ A$
neurocognitive$perspective.!Oxford:!Oxford!University!Press.!
Branigan,! H.! P.,! Pickering,!M.! J.,! &! Tanaka,! M.! (2008).! Contributions! of! animacy! to! grammatical! function!
assignment!and!word!order!during!production.!Lingua,!118,!172–189.! !
Brouwer,!H.,!Crocker,!M.!W.,!Venhuizen,!N.!J.,!&!Hoeks,!J.!C.!J.!(2016).!A!neurocomputational!model!of!the!
N400!and!the!P600!in!language!processing.$Cognitive$Science,!41,!1551–6709.! !
Brouwer,! H.,! Fitz,! H.,!&! H oeks,!J.! (2012).! Getting! real! about! semantic! illusions:! Rethinking! the! functio nal!
role!of!the!P600!in!language!comprehension.!Brain$Research,!1446,!127–143.!

!
!
21!
Clifton! C,! Jr.,! &! Frazier! L.!(2004).! Should! given! information! come! before! new?! Yes! and! no.!Memory$ and$
Cognition,!32,!886–895.!!
Ferreira,!V.!S.!&!Yoshita,!H.!(2003).!Given-new!ordering!effects!on!the!production!of!scrambled!sentences!in!
Japanese.!Journal$of$Psycholinguistic$Research,!32,!669!–!692.!
Fiebach,!C.!J.,!Schlesewsky,!M.,!&!Friederici,!A.!D.!(2001).!Syntactic!working!memory!and!the!establishment!
of! filler-gap! dependencies:! Insights! from! ERPs! and! fMRI.! Journal$ of$ Psycholinguistic$ Research,! 30(3),!
321–338.!
Fiebach,!C.!J.,!Schlesewsky,!M.,!&!Friederici,!A.!D.!(2002).!Separating!syntactic!memory! costs!and! syntactic!
integration! costs! during! parsing:! The! processing! of! German! WH-questions.! Journal$ of$ Memory$ and$
Language,!47(2),!250–272.!
Fiebach,!C.!J.,!Schlesewsky,! M.,! Lohmann,! G.,! von! Gramon,! D.!Y.,!&!Friederici,!A.!D.! (2005).! Revisiting! the!
role! of! Broca’s! area! sentence! processing:! Syntactic! integration! versus! syntactic! working! memory.!
Human$Brain$Mapping,!24,!79–91.! !
Frazier,! L.! &! Clifton,! C.! Jr.! (1989).! Successive! cyclicity! in! the! grammar! and! the! parser.! Language$ and$
Cognitive$Processes,$4,!93-126.! !
Friederici,! A.! D.! &! Frisch,! S.! (2000).! Verb! argument! structure! processing:! The! role! of! verb-specific! and!
argument-specific!information.!Journal$of$Memory$and$Language,!43(3),!476–507.!
Gibson,!E.!(1998).!Linguistic!complexity:!Locality!of!syntactic!dependencies,!Cognition,!68,!1–76.!
Gibson,! E.! (2000).! The! dependency! locality! theory:! A! distance-based! theory! of! linguistic! complexity.! In!
Marantz,!A.! P.,! Miyashita,! Y.,! &! O’Neil,! W.! (eds.),! Image,$ Language,$ Brain ,! 95–126.! Cambridge,!M A:!
MIT!Press.!
Greenhouse,!S.!W.!&!Geisser,!M.!(1959).!On!methods!in!the!analyses!of!profile!data.!Psychometrika,$24,$95–
112.!
Grewe,!T.,! Bornkessel-Schlesewsky,!I.,!Zysset,! S.,! Wiese,!R.,!von!Cramon,!D.!Y.,! &! Schlesewsky,! M.!(2007).!
The! role! of!the! posterior! superior! temporal! sulcus! in! the! processing! of! unmarked! transitivity.!
NeuroImage,!35,!343–352.!
Grodner,!D.,!Gibson,!E.,!&!Watson,!D.!(2005).!The!influence!of!contextual!contrast!on!syntactic!processing:!
Evidence!for!strong-interaction!in!sentence!comprehension.!Cognition,!95,!275–296.!!
Hagiwara,! H.,! Soshi,! T.,! Ishihara,! M.,! &! Imanaka,! K.! (2007).! A! topographical! study! on! the! event-related!
potential! correlates! of! scrambled! word! order! in! Japanese! complex! sentences.! Journal$ of$ Cognitive$
Neuroscience,!19,!175–193.!
Hirotani,! M.! &! Schumacher,! P.! B.! (2011).! Context! and! topic! marking! affect! distinct! processes! during!
discourse!comprehension!in!Japanese.!Journal$of$Neurolinguistics,!24,!276–292.! !
Hirsh-Pasek,! K.! &! Golinkoff,! R.! M.! (1996).! The$ origins$ of$ grammar:$ Evidence$ from$ early$ language$
comprehension.!Cambridge,!MA:!MIT!Press.!
Imamura,! S.! &! Koizumi,! M.! (2011).! A! centering! analysis! of! word! order! in! Japanese.! Tohoku$ Studies$ in$

!
!
22!
Linguistics,!20,!59–74.!
Imamura,!S.!(2014).!The!Influence!of!givenness!and!heaviness!on!OSV!in! Japanese,! In!Aroonmanakun,!W.,!
Boonkwan,! P.,! &! Supnithi,! T.$(eds),! Proceedings$ of$ the$ 28th$ Pacific$ Asia$ Conference$ on$ Language,$
Information$and$Computation,!Bangkok:!Chulalongkon!University,!224–233.! !
Imamura,! S.! (2015).! The! effects! of! givenness! and! heaviness! on! VP-internal! scrambling! and! VP-external!
scrambling!in!Japanese.!Studies$in$Pragmatics,$17,!1–16.! !
Jasper,! H.! H.! (1958).! The! ten-twenty! electrode! system! of! the! international! federation.!
Electroencephalography$and$Clinical$Neurophysiology,!10,!371–375.! !
Kaan,!E.!&!Swaab,!T.!Y.!(2003a).!Electrophysiological!evidence!for!serial!sentence!processing:!A!comparison!
between!non-preferred!and!ungrammatical!continuations.!Cognitive$Brain$Research,!17,!621–635.!
Kaan,! E.! &! Swaab,! T.! Y.! (2003b).! Repair,! revision,! and! complexity! in! syntactic! analysis:! An!
!electrophysiological!differentiation.!Journal$of$Cognitive$Neuroscience,!15(1),!98–110.!
Kaan,!E.,!Harris,!A.,!Gibson,!E.,!&!Holcomb,!P.!(2000)!The!P600!as!an!index!of!syntactic!integration!difficulty.!
Language$and$Cognitive$Processes,!15(2),!159-201.!
Kaiser,!E.!&!Trueswell,!J.!C.!(2004).!The!role!of!discourse!context!in!the!processing!of!a!flexible!word-order!
language.!Cognition,$94,!113–147.! !
Karttunen,!L.!&!Peters,!S.!(1976).!What!indirect!questions!conventionally!implicate.!In!Mufwene,!S.,!Walker,!
C.!A.,!and!Steever,!S.!B.,!(eds.),!CLS!12:! Papers$from$the$Twelfth$Regional$Meeting,!351–368.! Chicago:!
Chicago!Linguistic!Society.!
Kemmerer,!D.!(2012).! The! cross-linguistic! prevalence! of! SOV!and!SVO!word!orders!reflects!the!sequential!
and!hierarchical!representation!of!action!in!Broca’s!Area.!Language$and$Linguistics$Compass,!6(1),!50–
66.!
Kim,! J.! (2012).! Kankokugo! kakimazegojyunbun-no! puraimingu! kooka! [Priming! effects! in! scrambled!
sentences!in!Korean].!Culture,!75,!228–213.!
Kim,!J.,!Koizumi,!M.,!Ikuta,!N.,!Fukumitsu,!Y.,!Kimura,!N.,!Iwata,!K.,!Kawashima,!R.!(2009).!Scrambling!effects!
on!the!processing!of!Japanese!sentences:!An!fMRI!study.!Journal$of$Neurolinguistics,!22,!151–166.!
King,! J.! W.! &! Kutas,! M.! (1995).! Who! did! what! and! when?! Using! word-! and! clause-level! ERPs! to! monitor!
working!memory!usage!in!reading.!Journal$of$Cognitive$Neuroscience,!1,!378–395.!
Kinno,! R.,! Kawamura,! M.,! Shioda,! S.,! &! Sakai,! K.! L.! (2008).! Neural! correlates! of! non-canonical! syntactic!
processing!revealed!by!a!picture-sentence!matching!task.!Human$Brain$Mapping,!29,!1015–1027.!
Kluender,!R.,!&!Kutas,!M.! (1993).! Bridging! the! gap:! Evidence! from! ERPs! on! the! processing!of!unbounded!
dependencies.$Journal$of$Cognitive$Neuroscience,!5,!196–214.! !
Koizumi,!M.! &! Imamura,!S.!(2016).! Interaction!between!syntactic! structures!and!information! structures!in!
the!processing!of!a!head-final!language.!Journal$of$Psycholinguistic$Research,!46(1),!247–260.!
Koizumi,! M.!&! Kim,! J.! (2016).! Greater! left! inferior! frontal! activation! for! SVO! than! VOS! during! sentence!
comprehension!in!Kaqchikel.!Frontiers$in$Psychology,!7,!1541.!

!
!
23!
Koizumi,! M.,! &! Yasunaga,! D.! (2016).! Are! event-related! potentials! differentially! modulated! by! syntactic!
structure!and!information!structure?!Journal$of$Language$Sciences,!24:!323-344.!
!"#$%&#'()*'(+,-%.#'(+*'(/,&,"0,'(!*'(!#1,&,'(2*'(!#&'(3*'(45-#6#7,8(2#,7'( 3*(9*'(,7:( ;,<8=,(),>$,<'(?*(@*(ABCDEF*(
On!the!(non-)universality!of!the!preference!for!subject-object!word!order!in!sentence!comprehension:!
A!sentence!processing!study!in!Kaqchikel!Maya.!Language,!90,!722–736.!
Koso,! A.,! Hagiwara,! H.,! &! Soshi,! T.! (2007)! Event-related! brain! potentials! associated! with! scrambled!
Japanese!ditransitive!sentences.!In!Sakamoto,!T.!(ed),!Communicating$skills$of$intention,!pp.!337–352,!
Tokyo:!Hituzi!Syobo!Publishing.!
Kuno,!S.!(1978).!Danwa-no!Bunpo![Grammar!of!Discourse].!Tokyo:!Taishukan.!
Kuno,!S.!(1987).!Functional$Syntax:$Anaphora,$ Discourse$and$Empathy.$Chicago:! The!University!of!Chicago!
Press.!
Kuperberg,! G.! R.! (2007).! Neural! mechanisms! of! language! comprehension:! Challenges! to! syntax.! Brain$
Research,!1146(1),!23–49.!
Kutas,!M.!&!Federmeier,!K,!D.!(2011)!Thirty!years!and!counting!finding!meaning!in!the!N400!component!of!
the!event-related!brain!potential.!The$Annual$Review$of$Psychology,!62,!621–647.!
Kutas,!M.!&!Van!Petten.!C.!(1988).! Event-related! brain! potential!studies! of! language,! In! P.! K.! Ackles,!J.!R.!
Jennings,! &! M.! G.! H.! Coles! (eds.),! Advances$ in$ psychophysiology,$ pp.$ 139–187.! Greenwich,! CT:! JAI!
Press.!
Lau,! E.! &! Liao,! C.-H.! (2018).! Linguistic! structure! across! time:! ERP! responses! to! coordinated! and!
uncoordinated!noun!phrases.$Language,$Cognition$and$Neuroscience,!33(5),!633–647.!
Lopez-Calderon,!J.,! &! Luck,!S.!J.!(2014).! ERPLAB:!An!open-source!toolbox!for!the!analysis!of! event-related!
potentials.!Frontiers$in$human$neuroscience,!8,!213.!
Matzke,!M.,!Mai,!H.,!Nager,!W.,!Rüsseler,!J.,!&!Münte,!T.!F.!(2002).!The!cost!of!freedom:!An!ERP!study!of!
non-canonical!sentences.!Clinical$Neurophysiology,!113,!844–852.!
Mazuka,! R.,! Itoh,! K.,! &! Kondo,! T.! (2002).! Costs! of! scrambling! in! Japanese! sentence! processing.! In! M.!
Nakayama!(ed.),!Sentence$processing$in$East$Asian$languages,!131–!166.!Stanford,!CA:!CSLI.!
Meng,!M.,! Bader,!M.,!&! Bayer,!J.! (1999).! Die! Verarbeitung!von!Subjekt–! Objekt!Ambiguitäten!im! Kontext!
[The! processing! of! subject-object! ambiguities! in! context,! in! Proceedings$ der$ 4.$ Fachtagung$ der$
Gesellschaft$für$Kognitionswissenschaft,!eds! I.!Wachsmuth! &!B.!Jung!(St.!Augustin:!Infix!Verlag),! 244–
249.! !
Müller!H.!M.,!King,!J.!W.,!&!Kutas,!M.!(1997).!Event-related!brain!potentials!to!relative!clause!processing!in!
spoken!sentences.!Cognitive$Brain$Research,!5,!193–203.! !
Nieuwland,! M.! S.! &!Van! Berkum,! J.! J.! A.! (2008).! Individual! differences! and! contextual! bias! in! pronoun!
resolution:!Evidence!from!ERPs.!Brain$Research,!1118(1),!155–167.! ! !
Nieuwland,!M.! S.,!Petersson,!K.! M.!&!Van!Berkum,! J.!J.!A.! (2007).!On!sense!and! reference:!Examining!the!
functional!neuroanatomy!of!referential!processing.!NeuroImage,!37,!993–1004.!

!
!
24!
Oldfield,! R.! (1971).! The! assessment! and! analysis! of! handedness:! The! Edinburgh! inventory.!
Neuropsychologia,$9,!812–815.!
Osterhout,! L.!(1997).! On! the! brain! response! to! syntactic! anomalies:!Manipulations! of! word! position! and!
word!class!reveal!individual!differences.!Journal$of$Memory$and$language,!43,!476–507.! !
Phillips,! C.,! Kazanina,! N.,! &! Abada,! S.! (2005).! ERP! effects! of! the! processing! of! syntactic! long! distance!
dependencies.!Cognitive$Brain$Research,!22(3),!407-428.!
Postal,!P.!M.!(1971).!Cross-over$phenomena.!Holt,!Rinehart!&!Winston!of!Canada.! !
Primus,!B.!(1999).!Cases!and!thematic!roles.!Tübingen:!Niemeyer.! !
Roland,! D.,! Mauner,! G.,! O’Meara,! C.,! &! Yun,! H.! (2012).! Discourse! expectations! and! relative! clause!
processing.!Journal$of$Memory$and$Language,!66,!479–508.!
Rösler,! F.,! Pechmann,! T.,! Streb,! J.,! Roeder,! B.,! &! Hennighausen,! E.! (1998).! Parsing! of! sentences! in! a!
language! with! varying! word! order:! Word-by-word! variations!of!processing!demands! are! revealed!by!
event-related!brain!potentials.!Journal$of$Memory$and$Language,!38,!150–176.!
Sekerina,!I.!(2003).!Scrambling!and!processing:!Dependencies,!complexity!and!constraints,!In!Karimi,!S.!(ed.),$
Word$Order$and$Scrambling,!Malden,!MA:!Blackwell,!301–324.!!
Sekerina,!I.!A.! (1997).! The$ syntax$ and$ processing$ of$ Russian$scrambled$ constructions$in$ Russian,! Doctoral$
dissertation.!City!University!of!New!York,!New!York.!
Slobin,!D.!I.,!&!Bever,!T.!G.!(1982).!Children!use!canonical!sentence!schemas:!A!crosslinguistic!study!of!word!
order!and!inflections.!Cognition,!12,!229–265.!
Tamaoka,! K.,! Kanduboda,! P.! B.! A.,! &! Sakai,! H.! (2011).! Effects!of! word! order! alternation! on! the! sentence!
processing!of!Sinhalese!written!and!spoken!forms.!Open$Journal$of$Modern$Linguistics,!1,!24–32.!
Tamaoka,!K.,! Sakai,!H.,!Kawahara,!J.,!Miyaoka,!Y.,!Lim,!H.,! &!Koizumi,!M.! (2005).!Priority!information!used!
for! the! processing! of! Japanese! sentences:! Thematic! roles,! case! particles! or! grammatical! functions?!
Journal$of$Psycholinguistic$Research,!34,!281–332.!
Tanaka,!M.!N.,!Branigan,!H.!P.,!McLean,!J.!F.,!&!Pickering,!M.!J.!(2011).!Conceptual!influences!on!word!order!
and! voice! in!sentence! production:! Evidence! from! Japanese.! Journal$ of$ Memory$ and$ Language,! 65,!
318–330.!
Tsuchiya,!S.,!N.!Yoshimura!&!M.!Nakayama!(2015).!Subject!nouns!in!L2!Japanese!storytelling:!A!preliminary!
study.!Ars$Linguistica,!21,!89–102.!
Ueno,!M.! &! Kluender,!R.!(2003).!Event-related!brain!indices!of!Japanese!scrambling.!Brain$and$ Language,!
86,!243–271.!
Ueno,!M.!&!Kluender,!R.!(2009)!On!the!processing!of!Japanese!wh-questions:!An!ERP!study.!Brain$Research,!
1290(22),!63–90.!
Van!Berkum,!J.!J.!A.!(2004).!Sentence!comprehension!in!a!wider!discourse:!Can!we!use!ERPs!to!keep!track!
of! things?! In! Carreiras,! M.,! &! Clifton,! Jr.,! C.! (eds.),! The$ On-Line$ Study$ of$ Sentence$ Comprehension:$
Eyetracking,$ERPs$and$Beyond,!Psychology!Press,!New!York,!pp.!229–270.! !

!
!
25!
Van! Berkum,! J.! J.! A.,! Brown,! C.! M.,! &! Hagoort,! P.! (1999).! Early! referential! context! effects! in! sentence!
processing:!Evidence!from!event-related!brain!potentials.!Journal$of$Memory$and$Language,!41,!147–
182.!
Van! Berkum,! J.! J.! A.,! Brown,!C.! M.,! Hagoort,! P.,! &! Zwitserlood,! P.! (2003).! Event-related! brain! potentials!
reflect! discourse-! referential! ambiguity! in! spoken! language! comprehension.! Psychophysiology,! 40,!
235–248.!
Van! Berkum,! J.! J.! A.,!Koornneef,! A.! W.,! Otten,! M.,! &! Nieuwland,! M.! S.! (2007).! Establishing! reference! in!
language!comprehension:!An!electrophysiological!perspective.!Brain$Research,!1146,!158–171.! !
Van!Berkum,! J.!J.!A.,! Zwitserlood,!P.,! Bastiaansen,!M.! C.!M.,!Brown,! C.!M.,!&! Hagoort,!P.!(2004).!So!who's!
“he”! anyway?! Differential! ERP! and! ERSP! effects! o f! referential! success,! ambiguity! and! failure! during!
spoken!language!comprehension.!Annual$meeting$of$the$Cognitive$Neuroscience$Society,!San!Francisco,!
April!18–20.!
Vissers,!C.!Th.!W.!M.,!Chwilla,!D.!J.,!&!Kolk,!H.!H.!J.!(2006).!Monitoring!in!language!perception:!The!effect!of!
misspellings!of!words!in!highly!constrained!sentences.!Brain$Research,!1106(1),!150–163.!
Wagers,! M.! &! Phillips,! C.! (2009).! Multiple! dependencies! and! the! role! of! the! grammar! in! real-time!
comprehension.!Journal$of$Linguistics,!45,!395–433.! !
Wagers,! M.! W.! &! Phillips,! C.! (2013).! Going! the! distance:! Memory! and! control! processes! in! active!
dependency!construction.!The$Quarterly$Journal$of$Experimental$Psychology,!67(7),!1274–1304.!
Weckerly,!J.!Kutas,!M.!(1999).!An!electrophysiological!analysis!of!animacy!effects!in!the!processing!of!object!
relative!sentences.!Psychophysiology,!36,!559–570.! !
Yano,!M.,!Niikuni,!K.,!Ono,! H.,!Kiyama,!S.,!Sato,!M.,!Tang,!A.!A.,!Yasunaga,!D.,!&! Koizumi,!M.!(2017b).!VOS!
Preference!in!Truku!Sentence!Processing:!Evidence!from!Event-Related!Potentials.!The$ Society$for$the$
Neurobiology$of$Language$(SNL2017),!Baltimore,!Maryland.!
Yano,! M.,! Yasunaga,! D.,! &! Koizumi,! M.! (2017a).! Event-related! brain! indices! of! gap-filling! processing! in!
Kaqchikel,! In!Samuel! R.! Harris! (ed.),! Event-Related$ Potential$ (ERP):$ Methods,$ Outcomes,$ Research$
Insights,!New!York:!NOVA!Science!Publishers.!
Yasunaga,!D.,!Yano,!M.,!Yasugi,!Y.,! Koizumi,! M.! (2015).! Is! the! subject-before-object!preference!universal?!
An! event-related! potential! study! in! the! Kaqchikel! Mayan! language.! Language,$ Cognition,$ and$
Neuroscience,!30(9),!1209–1229.!
!