Editing Neurolinguistics (section)

====Violation-based====
[[File:ComponentsofERP.svg|right|thumb|An [[event-related potential]]]]
Many studies in neurolinguistics take advantage of anomalies or ''violations'' of [[Syntax|syntactic]] or [[Semantics|semantic]] rules in experimental stimuli, and analyzing the brain responses elicited when a subject encounters these violations. For example, sentences beginning with phrases such as *''the garden was on the worked'',<ref>Example from Frisch et al. (2004: 195).</ref> which violates an English [[phrase structure rule]], often elicit a brain response called the [[early left anterior negativity]] (ELAN).<ref name="frisch194">{{cite journal | last1=Frisch | first1=Stefan |author2=Anja Hahne; Angela D. Friederici | title=Word category and verb&ndash;argument structure information in the dynamics of parsing | year=2004 | journal=Cognition | pmid=15168895 | volume=91 | issue=3 | doi=10.1016/j.cognition.2003.09.009 | pages=191–219 [194]| s2cid=44889189 }}</ref> Violation techniques have been in use since at least 1980,<ref name="frisch194"/> when Kutas and Hillyard first reported [[Event-related potential|ERP]] evidence that [[semantic]] violations elicited an N400 effect.<ref>{{cite journal | last1=Kutas | first1=M. |author2=S.A. Hillyard | year=1980 | title=Reading senseless sentences: brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity | journal=Science | volume=207 | pages=203–205 | doi=10.1126/science.7350657 | pmid=7350657 | issue=4427| bibcode=1980Sci...207..203K }}</ref>  Using similar methods, in 1992, Lee Osterhout first reported the [[P600 (neuroscience)|P600]] response to syntactic anomalies.<ref>{{cite journal | last1=Osterhout | first1=Lee |author2=Phillip J. Holcomb | year=1992 | title=Event-related Potentials Elicited by Grammatical Anomalies | journal=Psychophysiological Brain Research | pages=299–302}}</ref> Violation designs have also been used for hemodynamic studies (fMRI and PET): Embick and colleagues, for example, used grammatical and spelling violations to investigate the location of syntactic processing in the brain using fMRI.<ref name=embicketal/> Another common use of violation designs is to combine two kinds of violations in the same sentence and thus make predictions about how different language processes interact with one another; this type of crossing-violation study has been used extensively to investigate how [[Syntax|syntactic]] and [[Semantics|semantic]] processes interact while people read or hear sentences.<ref name="martin-loeches">{{cite journal | journal=Brain Research | year=2006 | title=Semantics prevalence over syntax during sentence processing: a brain potential study of noun–adjective agreement in Spanish | pmid=16678138  | doi=10.1016/j.brainres.2006.03.094| first1=Manuel | last1=Martín-Loeches |author2=Roland Nigbura; Pilar Casadoa; Annette Hohlfeldc; Werner Sommer | volume= 1093| issue=1 | pages=178&ndash;189| s2cid=1188462 }}</ref><ref name="frisch195">{{cite journal | last1=Frisch | first1=Stefan |author2=Anja Hahne; Angela D. Friederici | title=Word category and verb&ndash;argument structure information in the dynamics of parsing | year=2004 | journal=Cognition | pmid=15168895 | volume=91 | issue=3 | doi=10.1016/j.cognition.2003.09.009 | pages=191–219 [195]| s2cid=44889189 }}</ref>