Funding source: Research Council of Norway
Award Identifier / Grant number: IS-DAAD 216850
Funding source: Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen
Funding source: Humanities Research Council of Canada
Award Identifier / Grant number: 4/2015–4/2016
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for Linguistics as well as the colleagues who reviewed the papers anonymously before they were submitted to the journal. Additional thanks go out to the program committees and audiences at the Tübingen (2013) and Edmonton (2015) instalments of DETEC for contributing to a lively debate on discourse expectations across disciplines. We would also like to thank our co-organizers in Tübingen – Oliver Bott and Anna Pryslopska – and Edmonton – Karsten Koch, Ruiting Jia, and Rebekka Puderbaugh – for all their effort. Last, but not least, we would like to thank the Editorial Board for accepting and supporting our proposal as well as Ann Kelly for her never-ending patience and much appreciated editorial work from the outset of this project. DETEC was made possible with funding from the following organizations: University of Tübingen, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (Individual Connection Grant 4/2015-4/2016), and the Research Council of Norway (IS-DAAD 216850).
References
Altmann, Gerry T. M. & Yuki Kamide. 1999. Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition 73(3). 247–64. 10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00059-1Search in Google Scholar
Bott, Oliver & Torgrim Solstad. 2014. From verbs to discourse: A novel account of implicit causality. In Barbara Hemforth, Barbara Mertins & Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen (eds.), Psycholinguistic approaches to meaning and understanding across languages (Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics 44), 213–251. New York: Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-05675-3_9Search in Google Scholar
Brown, Roger & Deborah Fish. 1983. The psychological causality implicit in language. Cognition 14(3). 237–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(83)90006-9.Search in Google Scholar
Bubic, Andreja, D. Yves von Cramon & Ricarda I. Schubotz. 2010. Prediction, cognition and the brain. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 4. 25. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2010.00025.Search in Google Scholar
Clark, Andy. 2013. Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36(3). 181–204. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x12000477.Search in Google Scholar
DeLong, Katherine A., Thomas P. Urbach & Marta Kutas. 2005. Probabilistic word pre-activation during language comprehension inferred from electrical brain activity. Nature Neuroscience 8. 1117–1121. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1504.Search in Google Scholar
DeLong, Katherine A., Melissa Troyer & Marta Kutas. 2014. Pre-processing in sentence comprehension: Sensitivity to likely upcoming meaning and structure. Language and Linguistic Compass 8(12). 631–645. https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12093.Search in Google Scholar
DeLong, Katherine A., Thomas P. Urbach & Marta Kutas. 2017. Is there a replication crisis? Perhaps. Is this an example? No: A commentary on Ito, Martin, and Nieuwland (2016). Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 32(8). 966–973. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2017.1279339.Search in Google Scholar
Ferreira, Fernanda & Suphasiree Chantavarin. 2018. Integration and prediction in language processing: A synthesis of old and new. Current Directions in Psychological Science 27(6). 443–448. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721418794491.Search in Google Scholar
Ferstl, Evelyn C., Alan Garnham & Christina Manouilidou. 2011. Implicit causality bias in English: A corpus of 300 verbs. Behavior Research Methods 43(1). 124–135. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-010-0023-2.Search in Google Scholar
Garvey, Catherine & Alfonso Caramazza. 1974. Implicit causality in verbs. Linguistic Inquiry 5(3). 459–464.Search in Google Scholar
Huettig, Falk. 2015. Four central questions about prediction in language processing. Brain Research 1626. 118–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2015.02.014.Search in Google Scholar
Huettig, Falk & Ernesto Guerra. 2019. Effects of speech rate, preview time of visual context, and participant instructions reveal strong limits on prediction in language processing. Brain Research 1706. 196–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2018.11.013.Search in Google Scholar
Huettig, Falk & Nivedita Mani. 2016. Is prediction necessary to understand language? Probably not. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 31(1). 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2015.1072223.Search in Google Scholar
Ito, Aine, Andrea E. Martin & Mante S. Nieuwland. 2017a. How robust are prediction effects in language comprehension? Failure to replicate article-elicited N400 effects. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 32(8). 954–965. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2016.1242761.Search in Google Scholar
Ito, Aine, Andrea E. Martin & Mante S. Nieuwland. 2017b. Why the A/AN prediction effect may be hard to replicate: A rebuttal to Delong, Urbach, and Kutas (2017). Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 32(8). 974–983. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2017.1323112.Search in Google Scholar
Kamide, Yuki. 2008. Anticipatory processes in sentence processing. Language and Linguistics Compass 2(4). 647–670. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818x.2008.00072.x.Search in Google Scholar
Kamide, Yuki, Gerry T. M. Altmann & Sarah L. Haywood. 2003. The time-course of prediction in incremental sentence processing: Evidence from anticipatory eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language 49(1). 133–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0749-596x(03)00023-8.Search in Google Scholar
Kehler, Andrew, Laura Kertz, Hannah Rohde & Jeffrey L. Elman. 2008. Coherence and coreference revisited. Journal of Semantics 25(1). 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffm018.Search in Google Scholar
Knoeferle, Pia, Matthew W. Crocker, Christoph Scheepers & Martin J. Pickering. 2005. The influence of the immediate visual context on incremental thematic role assignment: Evidence from eye-movements in depicted events. Cognition 95(1). 95–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.03.002.Search in Google Scholar
Kuperberg, Gina & Florian T. Jaeger. 2016. What do we mean by prediction in language comprehension? Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 31(1). 32–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2015.1102299.Search in Google Scholar
Lai, Vicky T. & Falk Huettig. 2016. When prediction is fulfilled: Insight from emotion processing. Neuropsychologia 85. 110–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2016.03.014.Search in Google Scholar
Martin, Clara D., Thierry Guillaume, Kuipers Jan-Rouke, Boutonnet Bastien, Foucart Alice & Costa Albert. 2013. Bilinguals reading in their second language do not predict upcoming words as native readers do. Journal of Memory and Language 69(4). 574–588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2013.08.001.Search in Google Scholar
Nieuwland, Mante S., Yana Arkhipova & Pablo Rodríguez-Gómez. 2020. Anticipating words during spoken discourse comprehension: A large-scale, pre-registered replication study using brain potentials. Cortex 133. 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2020.09.007.Search in Google Scholar
Nieuwland, Mante S., Stephen Politzer-Ahles, Evelien Heyselaar, Katrien Segaert, Emily Darley, Nina Kazanina, Sarah Von Grebmer Zu Wolfsthurn, Federica Bartolozzi, Vita Kogan, Aine Ito, Diane Mézière, Dale J. Barr, Guillaume A. Rousselet, Heather J. Ferguson, Simon Busch-Moreno, Xiao Fu, Jyrki Tuomainen, Eugenia Kulakova, E. Matthew Husband, David I. Donaldson, Zdenko Kohút, Rueschemeyer Shirley-Ann & Falk Huettig. 2018. Large-scale replication study reveals a limit on probabilistic prediction in language comprehension. eLife 7. e33468. https://doi.org/10.7554/elife.33468.Search in Google Scholar
Pashler, Harold & Eric-Jan Wagenmakers (eds.). 2012. Replicability in psychological science: A crisis of confidence? [Special Section]. Perspectives on Psychological Science 7(6).10.1177/1745691612465253Search in Google Scholar
Pickering, Martin J. & Chiara Gambi. 2018. Predicting while comprehending language: A theory and review. Psychological Bulletin 144(10). 1002–1044. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000158.Search in Google Scholar
Swaab, Tamara Y., Kerry Ledoux, C. Christine Camblin & Megan A. Boudewyn. 2011. Language-related ERP components. In Emily S. Kappenman & Steven J. Luck (eds.), The Oxford handbook of event-related potential components, 397–440. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195374148.013.0197Search in Google Scholar
van Berkum, Jos J. A., Colin M. Brown, Pienie Zwitserlood, Valesca Kooijman & Peter Hagoort. 2005. Anticipating upcoming words in discourse: Evidence from ERPs and reading times. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 31(3). 443–466. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.31.3.443.Search in Google Scholar
van Berkum, Jos J. A., Dieuwke De Goede, Petra M. van Alphen, Emma R. Mulder & José H. Kerstholt. 2013. How robust is the language architecture? The case of mood. Frontiers in Psychology 4(505). 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00505.Search in Google Scholar
Wicha, Nicole Y. Y., Eva M. Moreno & Marta Kutas. 2004. Anticipating words and their gender: An event-related brain potential study of semantic integration, gender expectancy, and gender agreement in Spanish sentence reading. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 16(7). 1272–1288. https://doi.org/10.1162/0898929041920487.Search in Google Scholar
© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
