gansThis animation shows a P600 ERP simulated by a Fock space parser processing a phrase structure violation compared to a correct sentence [REF].

Conditions according to Hahne & Friederici (1999):

Violation condition:

*Die Gans wurde im gebraten.
 The goose was in the grilled.
 "The goose was grilled in the."

Correct condition:

Die Gans wurde im Ofen gebraten.
The goose was in the oven grilled.
"The goose was grilled in the oven."

"The brain, as intentional systems theory and evolutionary biology shows us, is a semantic engine; its task is to discover what its multifarious inputs mean, to discriminate them by their significance and `act accordingly.' That's what brains are for. But the brain, as physiology or plain common sense shows us, is just a syntactic engine; all it can do is discriminate its inputs by their structural, temporal and physical features and let its entirely mechanical activities be governed by these `syntactic' features of its inputs. That's all brains can do. Now, how does the brain manage to get semantics from syntax? How could any entity [...] get the semantics of a system from nothing but its syntax? It couldn't. The syntax of a system doesn't determine its semantics. By what alchemy, then, does the brain extract semantically reliable results from syntactically driven operations? It cannot be designed to do an impossible task, but it could be designed to approximate the impossible task, to mimic the behavior of the impossible object (the semantic engine) by capitalizing on close (close enough) fortuitous correspondences between structural regularities --- of the environment and of its own internal states and operations --- and semantic types." (p. 61)