Electrophysiological Evidence for Sentence Comprehension - Wings

operator projection of the clause (or NP). As eADM says nothing about operators, there is
nothing in the model that speaks against such a development.
In short, the results confirm that the processing related to the information represented on
the constituent and operator projection is cognitively different and more, that the results
obtained in the experiments that manipulate the operator projection are similar across
experiments. The second point (i.e. the functional correspondence of components at
different latencies) indicates what kind of a model could explain the results. The same
latency of P600 and N400’ suggest that immediacy models (such as MUC model in
Hagoort, 2003, 2005) are good candidates due to an important feature of these models:
the information is processed when it becomes available, not according to some fixed
order. The information about the time of the event described in the stimulus sentences is,
on the one hand not required for the thematic role assignment (therefore, no LAN effect),
but, on the other hand, it is required for the overall integration of the sentence meaning
(therefore, N400’ co-occurs with P600). It should be noted that this reasoning still has a
high degree of speculation due to the fact that visual stimuli are not suitable for these
inferences. Acoustic stimuli, for which one can say what information is available at some
point in time as in Friederici’s (2002) and Hagoort’s experiments. Nevertheless, the
results of the ‘case’ and ‘tense’ experiment actually corroborate RRG as a language
processing model and eADM, the model which is based on RRG, to the extent the model
addresses the issues raised by the interpretation of the experiments.
152