Abstract
Event-related potentials were used to investigate whether semantic integration in discourse is influenced by the number of intervening sentences between the endpoints of integration. Readers read discourses in which the last sentence contained a critical word that was either congruent or incongruent with the information introduced in the first sentence. Furthermore, for the short discourses, the first and last sentence were intervened by only one sentence while for the long discourses, they were intervened by three sentences. We found that the incongruent words elicited an N400 effect for both the short and long discourses. However, a P600 effect was only observed for the long discourses, but not for the short ones. These results suggest that although readers can successfully integrate upcoming words into the existing discourse representation, the effort required for this integration process is modulated by the number of intervening sentences. Thus, discourse distance as measured by the number of intervening sentences should be taken as an important factor for semantic integration in discourse.
Highlights
One of the central research topics in psycholinguistics is understanding the nature of discourse comprehension
The present study explores the unique contribution of discourse distance to online semantic integration in discourse processing
The results revealed neither the main effect of discourse distance or congruence, nor the interaction between the two factors
Summary
One of the central research topics in psycholinguistics is understanding the nature of discourse comprehension. Instead of an N400 effect, Nieuwland and Van Berkum[17] reported a P600 effect when listeners detected anomalies (e.g., ‘‘the woman told the [suitcase]” in a scenario in which the suitcase was a very salient part of the setting) This again suggests that words with a good fit to global scenario only receive shallow semantic processing, providing further support for a strong and immediate effect of discourse context. We manipulated semantic integration in such a way that the final sentence of each discourse contained a critical word that was either congruent (e.g., sadness in the example of Table 1) or incongruent (e.g., happiness) only when interpreted with the information introduced in the first sentence (e.g., got fired).
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
