Movement-based approaches

2020 ◽  
pp. 122-155
Author(s):  
Rui P. Chaves ◽  
Michael T. Putnam
Keyword(s):  
Language Processing ◽  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Structural Information ◽  
Cognitive Status ◽  
Minimalist Program ◽  
Cyclic Movement ◽  
Island Constraints ◽  
Unbounded Dependency ◽  
Island Phenomena ◽  
Internal Merge

This chapter discusses how the Minimalist Program (MP) strives to model unbounded dependency constructions and island constraints, and discusses the empirical, theoretical and cognitive status of syntactic displacement (movement), as formalized in terms of Internal Merge. At the present time, modelling filler-gap dependencies via movement faces significant theoretical and empirical issues. There is no parsimonious account of successive cyclic movement in the MP because of the Triggering Problem, nor of convergent and cumulative filler-gap dependencies. Other problems concern island phenomena, which have been argued to follow from core architectural economy constraints, but which make incorrect predictions not only about islands, but also about unbounded dependency constructions more generally. Finally, the MP has also been difficult to reconcile with extant psycholinguistic evidence about language processing. All recent attempts to make the MP consistent with incremental sentence processing adopt phrase-structural information, and abandon movement altogether.

Extraction constraints

2020 ◽  
pp. 49-121
Author(s):  
Rui P. Chaves ◽  
Michael T. Putnam
Keyword(s):  
Information Structure ◽  
Relative Clauses ◽  
States Of Affairs ◽  
Detailed Survey ◽  
Island Constraints ◽  
Unbounded Dependency ◽  
Island Phenomena

This chapter offers a detailed survey of the constraints that restrict filler-gap dependencies (island constraints), and argues that there are several different kinds of island constraints, due to different combinations of independently motivated factors. Most importantly, it argues that most islands are not cross-constructionally active. That is, most island phenomena are restricted to certain kinds of unbounded dependency constructions (e.g. interrogatives, or relative clauses). In particular, several island types are primarily caused by drawing the hearer’s attention to a fronted referent that is not at-issue, and is of little consequence to what the utterance convey. Such an account emerges naturally from the observation that not all propositions express equally likely states of affairs and that different constructions come with different biases with respect to how information structure is packaged, and consequently, to which referents it is pragmatically licit to single out. The chapter concludes with a discussion of resumption and supposed island effects in other types of construction.

scholarly journals Beyond Recursion: Critique of Hauser, Chomsky, and Fitch

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 58-66
Author(s):  
Роман Тарабань ◽  
Бандара Ахінта
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Cognitive Processing ◽  
Language Processing ◽  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Minimalist Program ◽  
University Of Pennsylvania ◽  
Human Language ◽  
Human Communication ◽  
Formal Properties ◽  
And Control

In 2002, Hauser, Chomsky, and Fitch published an article in which they introduced a distinction between properties of language that are exclusively part of human communication (i.e., the FLN) and those properties that might be shared with other species (i.e., the FLB). The sole property proposed for the FLN was recursion. Hauser et al. provided evidence for their position based on issues of evolution. The question of the required properties of human language is central to developing theories of language processing and acquisition. In the present critique of Hauser et al. we consider two examples from non-English languages that argue against the suggestion that recursion is the sole property within the human language faculty. These are i) agreement of inflectional morphemes across sentence constructions, and ii) synthetic one-word constructions. References Adger, D. (2003). Core Syntax: A Minimalist Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1989). Functionalism and the Competition Model. In: The Crosslinguistic Study of Sentence Processing, (pp 3-76). B. MacWhinney and E. Bates (Eds.). New York: Cambridge University Press. Bickerton, D (2009). Recursion: core of complexity or artifact of analysis? In: Syntactic Complexity: Diachrony, Acquisition, Neuro-Cognition, Evolution, (pp. 531–543). T. Givón and M. Shibatani (Eds.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structures (2nd edition published in 2002). Berlin: Mouton Chomsky, N. (1959). On certain formal properties of grammars. Information and Control, 2, 137–167. Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N., Fitch, W. T. (2002). The faculty of language: What it is, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science, 298, 1569-1579. Luuk, E., & Luuk, H. (2011). The redundancy of recursion and infinity for natural language. Cognitive Processing 12, 1–11. Marantz, A. (1997). No escape from syntax: Don't try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 4(2), A. Dimitriadis, L. Siegel, et. al. (eds.), 201- 225. MacWhinney, B. & O’Grady, W. (Eds.) (2015). Handbook of Language Emergence. New York: Wiley. Nevins, A., Pesetsky, D., & Rodrigues, C. (2009). Pirahã exceptionality: A reassessment. Language, 85(2), 355–404. Ott, D. (2009). The evolution of I-language: Lexicalization as the key evolutionary novelty. Biolinguistics, 3, 255–269. Sauerland, U., & Trotzke, A. (2011). Biolinguistic perspectives on recursion: Introduction to the special issue. Biolinguistics, 5, 1–9. Trotzke, A., Bader, M. & Frazier, L. (2013). Third factors and the performance interface in language design. Biolinguistics, 7, 1–34.  

Processing subject focus across two Spanish varieties

Probus ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 93-127
Author(s):  
Bradley Hoot ◽  
Tania Leal
Keyword(s):  
Language Processing ◽  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Word Order ◽  
Judgment Task ◽  
Spanish Speakers ◽  
Experimental Results ◽  
Final Position ◽  
Reading Task ◽  
New Information ◽  
Basic Facts

AbstractLinguists have keenly studied the realization of focus – the part of the sentence introducing new information – because it involves the interaction of different linguistic modules. Syntacticians have argued that Spanish uses word order for information-structural purposes, marking focused constituents via rightmost movement. However, recent studies have challenged this claim. To contribute sentence-processing evidence, we conducted a self-paced reading task and a judgment task with Mexican and Catalonian Spanish speakers. We found that movement to final position can signal focus in Spanish, in contrast to the aforementioned work. We contextualize our results within the literature, identifying three basic facts that theories of Spanish focus and theories of language processing should explain, and advance a fourth: that mismatches in information-structural expectations can induce processing delays. Finally, we propose that some differences in the existing experimental results may stem from methodological differences.

Prediction and integration in native and second-language processing of elliptical structures

2014 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
EDITH KAAN ◽  
JOSEPH KIRKHAM ◽  
FRANK WIJNEN
Keyword(s):  
Language Processing ◽  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
Event Related Potentials ◽  
Syntactic Analysis ◽  
Second Language Processing ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
Frontal Negativity ◽  
Related Potentials

According to recent views of L2-sentence processing, L2-speakers do not predict upcoming information to the same extent as do native speakers. To investigate L2-speakers’ predictive use and integration of syntactic information across clauses, we recorded event-related potentials (ERPs) from advanced L2-learners and native speakers while they read sentences in which the syntactic context did or did not allow noun-ellipsis (Lau, E., Stroud, C., Plesch, S., & Phillips, C. (2006). The role of structural prediction in rapid syntactic analysis. Brain and Language, 98, 74–88.) Both native and L2-speakers were sensitive to the context when integrating words after the potential ellipsis-site. However, native, but not L2-speakers, anticipated the ellipsis, as suggested by an ERP difference between elliptical and non-elliptical contexts preceding the potential ellipsis-site. In addition, L2-learners displayed a late frontal negativity for ungrammaticalities, suggesting differences in repair strategies or resources compared with native speakers.

The Neurobiology of Sensory and Language Processing in Language-Impaired Children

1993 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 235-253 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen J. Neville ◽  
Sharon A. Coffey ◽  
Phillip J. Holcomb ◽  
Paula Tallal
Keyword(s):  
Language Processing ◽  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Language Impairment ◽  
Cognitive Abilities ◽  
Temporal Discrimination ◽  
Hemispheric Specialization ◽  
Superior Temporal Gyrus ◽  
Language Impaired ◽  
Neurophysiological Studies ◽  
Abnormal Performance

Clinical, behavioral, and neurophysiological studies of developmental language impairment (LI), including reading disability (RD), have variously emphasized different factors that may contribute to this disorder. These include abnormal sensory processing within both the auditory and visual modalities and deficits in linguistic skills and in general cognitive abilities. In this study we employed the event-related brain potential (ERP) technique in a series of studies to probe and compare Merent aspects of functioning within the same sample of LI/RD children. Within the group multiple aspects of processing were affected, but heterogeneously across the sample. ERP components linked to processing within the superior temporal gyrus were abnormal in a subset of children that displayed abnormal performance on an auditory temporal discrimination task. An early component of the visual ERP was reduced in amplitude in the group as a whole. The relevance of this effect to current conceptions of substreams within the visual system is discussed. During a sentence processing task abnormal hemispheric specialization was observed in a subset of children who scored poorly on tests of grammar. By contrast the group as a whole displayed abnormally large responses to words requiring contextual integration. The results imply that multiple factors can contribute to the profile of language impairment and that different and specific deficits occur heterogeneously across populations of LI/RD children.

Neural Systems for Sentence Processing in Stuttering

2001 ◽  
Vol 44 (4) ◽  
pp. 814-825 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine Weber-Fox
Keyword(s):  
Language Processing ◽  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Neural Systems ◽  
Linguistic Processing ◽  
Brain Organization ◽  
Brain Potentials ◽  
Closed Class ◽  
Functional Brain Organization ◽  
Open Class

The role of neurolinguistic factors in stuttering was investigated by determining whether individuals who stutter display atypical neural functions for language processing, even with no speech production demands. Event-related brain potentials (ERPs) were obtained while 9 individuals who stutter (IWS) and 9 normally fluent speakers (NS) read sentences silently. The ERPs were elicited by: (a) closed-class words that provide structural or grammatical information, (b) open-class words that convey referential meaning, and (c) semantic anomalies (violations in semantic expectation). In standardized tests, adult IWS displayed similar grammatical and lexical abilities in both comprehension and production tasks compared to their matched, normally fluent peers. Yet the ERPs elicited in IWS for linguistic processing tasks revealed differences in functional brain organization. The ERPs elicited in IWS were characterized by reduced negative amplitudes for closed-class words (N280), open-class words (N350), and semantic anomalies (N400) in a temporal window of approximately 200–450 ms after word onsets. The overall pattern of results indicates that alterations in processing for IWS are related to neural functions that are common to word classes and perhaps involve shared, underlying processes for lexical access.

The Unfolding of Cognitive Effort During Sentence Processing: Pupillometric Evidence From People With and Without Aphasia

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-18
Author(s):  
Laura Roche Chapman ◽  
Brooke Hallowell
Keyword(s):  
Language Processing ◽  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Time Course ◽  
Time Windows ◽  
Cognitive Effort ◽  
Task Engagement ◽  
The Body ◽  
Group Differences ◽  
Language Deficits ◽  
Pupillary Responses

Purpose: Arousal and cognitive effort are relevant yet often overlooked components of attention during language processing. Pupillometry can be used to provide a psychophysiological index of arousal and cognitive effort. Given that much is unknown regarding the relationship between cognition and language deficits seen in people with aphasia (PWA), pupillometry may be uniquely suited to explore those relationships. The purpose of this study was to examine arousal and the time course of the allocation of cognitive effort related to sentence processing in people with and without aphasia. Method: Nineteen PWA and age- and education-matched control participants listened to relatively easy (subject-relative) and relatively difficult (object-relative) sentences and were required to answer occasional comprehension questions. Tonic and phasic pupillary responses were used to index arousal and the unfolding of cognitive effort, respectively, while sentences were processed. Group differences in tonic and phasic responses were examined. Results: Group differences were observed for both tonic and phasic responses. PWA exhibited greater overall arousal throughout the task compared with controls, as evidenced by larger tonic pupil responses. Controls exhibited more effort (greater phasic responses) for difficult compared with easy sentences; PWA did not. Group differences in phasic responses were apparent during end-of-sentence and postsentence time windows. Conclusions: Results indicate that the attentional state of PWA in this study was not consistently supportive of adequate task engagement. PWA in our sample may have relatively limited attentional capacity or may have challenges with allocating existing capacity in ways that support adequate task engagement and performance. This work adds to the body of evidence supporting the validity of pupillometric tasks for the study of aphasia and contributes to a better understanding of the nature of language deficits in aphasia. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.16959376

The Structural Language Network

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Angela D. Friederici ◽  
Noam Chomsky
Keyword(s):  
White Matter ◽  
Language Processing ◽  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Information Transfer ◽  
Right Hemisphere ◽  
Brain Regions ◽  
Neural Basis ◽  
Fiber Tracts ◽  
White Matter Fiber Tracts ◽  
The Right

An adequate description of the neural basis of language processing must consider the entire network both with respect to its structural white matter connections and the functional connectivities between the different brain regions as the information has to be sent between different language-related regions distributed across the temporal and frontal cortex. This chapter discusses the white matter fiber bundles that connect the language-relevant regions. The chapter is broken into three sections. In the first, we look at the white matter fiber tracts connecting the language-relevant regions in the frontal and temporal cortices; in the second, the ventral and dorsal pathways in the right hemisphere that connect temporal and frontal regions; and finally in the third, the two syntax-relevant and (at least) one semantic-relevant neuroanatomically-defined networks that sentence processing is based on. From this discussion, it becomes clear that online language processing requires information transfer via the long-range white matter fiber pathways that connect the language-relevant brain regions within each hemisphere and between hemispheres.

Theories and frameworks in second language processing

2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 702-703 ◽  
Author(s):  
ANTON MALKO ◽  
LARA EHRENHOFER ◽  
COLIN PHILLIPS
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Language Processing ◽  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Memory Retrieval ◽  
General Framework ◽  
Second Language Processing

Analyzing L2 sentence processing in terms of cue-based memory retrieval is promising. But this useful general framework has yet to become a specific theory of L1-L2 differences.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document