scholarly journals 'Constituent length' effects in fMRI do not provide evidence for abstract syntactic processing

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cory Shain ◽  
Hope Kean ◽  
Benjamin Lipkin ◽  
Josef Affourtit ◽  
Matthew Siegelman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Syntactic Structure ◽  
Temporal Cortex ◽  
Syntactic Processing ◽  
Sentence Structure ◽  
Human Language ◽  
Length Effect ◽  
Language System ◽  
Fmri Study ◽  
Abstract Sentence

How are syntactically and semantically connected word sequences, or constituents, represented in the human language system? An influential fMRI study, Pallier et al. (2011, PNAS), manipulated the length of constituents in sequences of words or pseudowords. They reported that some language regions (in the anterior temporal cortex and near the temporo-parietal junction) were sensitive to constituent length only for sequences of real words but not pseudowords. In contrast, language regions in the inferior frontal and posterior temporal cortex showed the same pattern of increased response to longer constituents - and similar overall response magnitudes - for word and pseudoword sequences. Based on these results, Pallier et al. argued that the latter regions represent abstract sentence structure. Here we identify methodological and theoretical concerns with the Pallier et al. study and conduct a replication across two fMRI experiments. Our results do not support Pallier et al.'s critical claim of distinct neural specialization for abstract syntactic representations. Instead, we find that all language regions show a similar profile of sensitivity to both constituent length and lexicality (stronger responses to real-word than pseudoword stimuli). In addition, we argue that the constituent length effect in these experiments i) is not readily grounded in established theories of sentence processing, and ii) may not actually derive from syntactic structure building, but may instead reflect the temporal receptive window of the human language system.

scholarly journals Lists with and without syntax: A new approach to measuring the neural processing of syntax

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryan Law ◽  
Liina Pylkkänen
Keyword(s):  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Syntactic Structure ◽  
Word Meaning ◽  
Temporal Cortex ◽  
Sentence Structure ◽  
Contrast Effects ◽  
Semantic Associations ◽  
Word Onset ◽  
Neural Signature ◽  
Temporal Language

ABSTRACTIn the neurobiology of language, a fundamental challenge is deconfounding syntax from semantics. Changes in syntactic structure usually correlate with changes in meaning. We approached this challenge from a new angle. We deployed word lists, which are usually the unstructured control in studies of syntax, as both the test and the control stimulus. Three-noun lists (lamps, dolls, guitars) were embedded in sentences (The eccentric man hoarded lamps, dolls, guitars…) and in longer lists (forks, pen, toilet, rodeo, graves, drums, mulch, lamps, dolls, guitars…). This allowed us to perfectly control both lexical characteristics and local combinatorics: the same words occurred in both conditions and in neither case did the list items locally compose into phrases (e.g. ‘lamps’ and ‘dolls’ do not form a phrase). But in one case, the list partakes in a syntactic tree, while in the other, it does not. Being embedded inside a syntactic tree increased source-localized MEG activity at ~250-300ms from word onset in the left inferior frontal cortex, at ~300-350ms in the left anterior temporal lobe and, most reliably, at ~330-400ms in left posterior temporal cortex. In contrast, effects of semantic association strength, which we also varied, localized in left temporo-parietal cortex, with high associations increasing activity at around 400ms. This dissociation offers a novel characterization of the structure vs. meaning contrast in the brain: The fronto-temporal network that is familiar from studies of sentence processing can be driven by the sheer presence of global sentence structure, while associative semantics has a more posterior neural signature.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENTHuman languages all have a syntax, which both enables the infinitude of linguistic creativity and determines what is grammatical in a language. The neurobiology of syntactic processing has, however, been challenging to characterize despite decades of study. One reason is pure manipulations of syntax are difficult to design. The approach here offers a perfect control of two variables that are notoriously hard to keep constant when syntax is manipulated: word meaning and phrasal combinatorics. The same noun lists occurred inside longer lists and sentences, while semantic associations also varied. Our MEG results show that classic fronto-temporal language regions can be driven by sentence structure even when local semantic contributions are absent. In contrast, the left temporo-parietal junction tracks associative relationships.

scholarly journals Overt and covert prosody are reflected in neurophysiological responses previously attributed to grammatical processing

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anastasia Glushko ◽  
David Poeppel ◽  
Karsten Steinhauer
Keyword(s):  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Spectral Power ◽  
Syntactic Structure ◽  
Alternative Hypothesis ◽  
Syntactic Processing ◽  
Neural Responses ◽  
Prosodic Cues ◽  
Power Peak ◽  
Interactive Relationship ◽  
Online Sentence Processing

AbstractRecent neurophysiological research suggests that slow cortical activity tracks hierarchical syntactic structure during online sentence processing (e.g., Ding, Melloni, Zhang, Tian, & Poeppel, 2016). Here we tested an alternative hypothesis: electrophysiological activity peaks at sentence constituent frequencies reflect cortical tracking of overt or covert (implicit) prosodic grouping. In three experiments, participants listened to series of sentences while electroencephalography (EEG) was recorded. First, prosodic cues in the sentence materials were neutralized. We found an EEG spectral power peak elicited at a frequency that only ‘tagged’ covert prosodic change, but not any major syntactic constituents. In the second experiment, participants listened to a series of sentences with overt prosodic grouping cues that either aligned or misaligned with the syntactic phrasing in the sentences (initial overt prosody trials). Immediately after each overt prosody trial, participants were presented with a second series of sentences (covert prosody trial) with all overt prosodic cues neutralized and asked to imagine the prosodic contour present in the previous, overt prosody trial. The EEG responses reflected an interactive relationship between syntactic processing and prosodic tracking at the frequencies of syntactic constituents (sentences and phrases): alignment of syntax and prosody boosted EEG responses, whereas their misalignment had an opposite effect. This was true for both overt and covert (imagined) prosody. We conclude that processing of both overt and covert prosody is reflected in the frequency tagged neural responses at sentence constituent frequencies, whereas identifying neural markers that are narrowly reflective of syntactic processing remains difficult and controversial.

Susceptibility to interference: underlying mechanisms, and implications for prediction

2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 696-697 ◽  
Author(s):  
EDITH KAAN
Keyword(s):  
Language Processing ◽  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Syntactic Structure ◽  
Syntactic Processing ◽  
Healthy Young Adult ◽  
Aging Research ◽  
Structure Building ◽  
L2 Processing ◽  
Underlying Mechanisms ◽  
Increased Susceptibility

Over the years, models proposed for second-language (L2) processing have been remarkably parallel to those proposed for Broca's aphasia. Differences between agrammatic and unaffected language processing have been explained, e.g., in terms of lack of detailed syntactic structure building (Grodzinsky, 1995), resource deficits (Haarman, Just & Carpenter, 1997), slow syntactic processing (Burkhardt, Avrutin, Piñango & Ruigendijk, 2008), or slowed lexical access (Love, Swinney, Walenski & Zurif, 2008). Each of these approaches have their homolog in L2 processing (e.g., Clahsen & Felser, 2006; McDonald, 2006; Dekydtspotter, Schwartz & Sprouse, 2006; Hopp, 2013, respectively). It is therefore not surprising that Cunnings's proposal (Cunnings, 2016) parallels another idea in aphasia and aging research, namely that deviations from healthy young adult monolingual sentence processing can be attributed to an increased susceptibility to interference (e.g., Sheppard, Walenski, Love & Shapiro, 2015).

Bilingual sentence processing

2007 ◽  
pp. 370-384
Author(s):  
Arturo E. Hernández ◽  
Eva M. Fernández ◽  
Noemí Aznar-besé
Keyword(s):  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Proficiency ◽  
Language Processing ◽  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Semantic Processing ◽  
Syntactic Processing ◽  
Human Language ◽  
Processing Effects

Bilinguals live in two linguistic worlds. Given the different demands of each language, one might think that each system functions independently. However, bilinguals do not behave like two monolingual speaker/listeners housed in a single brain. Instead, the evidence to date suggests that the characteristics of bilingual language processing may appear to be “in between” the individual's two codes. Studies in bilingual sentence processing have focused on phenomena related to how semantic or syntactic representations are built. This article reviews data consistent with the view of interdependence between the two languages of the bilingual, using evidence from the literature on bilingual sentence processing. Studies of both semantic processing and syntactic processing show that bilinguals almost always use a unitary mechanism which accesses two separately represented grammars. The study of bilingual sentence processing can also offer insights into our understanding of human language processing in general, because bilinguals offer opportunities to examine sentence processing effects in within-participant designs, impossible to carry out with monolinguals. In addition to the above, this article explores parsing, the age of language acquisition, and language proficiency.

scholarly journals Syntactic representations in the human brain: beyond effort-based metrics

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aniketh Janardhan Reddy ◽  
Leila Wehbe
Keyword(s):  
Language Processing ◽  
Syntactic Structure ◽  
Brain Activity ◽  
Brain Regions ◽  
Syntactic Processing ◽  
Language System ◽  
Language Studies ◽  
Syntactic Information ◽  
Show Evidence ◽  
The Brain

AbstractWe are far from having a complete mechanistic understanding of the brain computations involved in language processing and of the role that syntax plays in those computations. Most language studies do not computationally model syntactic structure, and most studies that do model syntactic processing use effort-based metrics. These metrics capture the effort needed to process the syntactic information given by every word [9, 10, 25]. They can reveal where in the brain syntactic processing occurs, but not what features of syntax are processed by different brain regions. Here, we move beyond effort-based metrics and propose explicit features capturing the syntactic structure that is incrementally built while a sentence is being read. Using these features and functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) recordings of participants reading a natural text, we study the brain representation of syntax. We find that our syntactic structure-based features are better than effort-based metrics at predicting brain activity in various parts of the language system. We show evidence of the brain representation of complex syntactic information such as phrase and clause structures. We see that regions well-predicted by syntactic features are distributed in the language system and are not distinguishable from those processing semantics. Our results call for a shift in the approach used for studying syntactic processing.

scholarly journals Neural Measures Reveal Implicit Learning during Language Processing

2016 ◽  
Vol 28 (10) ◽  
pp. 1636-1649 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura J. Batterink ◽  
Larry Y. Cheng ◽  
Ken A. Paller
Keyword(s):  
Implicit Learning ◽  
Language Processing ◽  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Syntactic Structure ◽  
Social Contexts ◽  
Large Set ◽  
Sentence Structure ◽  
Learning Mechanisms ◽  
Garden Path ◽  
Font Color

Language input is highly variable; phonological, lexical, and syntactic features vary systematically across different speakers, geographic regions, and social contexts. Previous evidence shows that language users are sensitive to these contextual changes and that they can rapidly adapt to local regularities. For example, listeners quickly adjust to accented speech, facilitating comprehension. It has been proposed that this type of adaptation is a form of implicit learning. This study examined a similar type of adaptation, syntactic adaptation, to address two issues: (1) whether language comprehenders are sensitive to a subtle probabilistic contingency between an extraneous feature (font color) and syntactic structure and (2) whether this sensitivity should be attributed to implicit learning. Participants read a large set of sentences, 40% of which were garden-path sentences containing temporary syntactic ambiguities. Critically, but unbeknownst to participants, font color probabilistically predicted the presence of a garden-path structure, with 75% of garden-path sentences (and 25% of normative sentences) appearing in a given font color. ERPs were recorded during sentence processing. Almost all participants indicated no conscious awareness of the relationship between font color and sentence structure. Nonetheless, after sufficient time to learn this relationship, ERPs time-locked to the point of syntactic ambiguity resolution in garden-path sentences differed significantly as a function of font color. End-of-sentence grammaticality judgments were also influenced by font color, suggesting that a match between font color and sentence structure increased processing fluency. Overall, these findings indicate that participants can implicitly detect subtle co-occurrences between physical features of sentences and abstract, syntactic properties, supporting the notion that implicit learning mechanisms are generally operative during online language processing.

Syntactic ambiguity resolution and revision processes in complement sentences

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hiroki Fujita
Keyword(s):  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Syntactic Structure ◽  
Syntactic Processing ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Syntactic Ambiguity ◽  
Garden Path ◽  
Correct Analysis ◽  
Syntactic Information ◽  
Contradictory Evidence ◽  
Processing Heuristic

Temporarily ambiguous sentences are sometimes misanalysed and require revision during sentence processing. Previous studies have reported that non-syntactic information such as verb subcategorisation information does not always prevent misanalysis. However, there is contradictory evidence about whether non-syntactic information is immediately used to recover the globally correct analysis. Previous studies have also reported that initially assigned misinterpretations linger after disambiguation. Some recent studies have suggested that this lingering misinterpretation does not result from a failure to conduct syntactic revision. However, the current evidence for syntactic revision is scarce, limited to a syntactic structure and eye-movement while reading task, and crucially does not necessarily prove that syntactic revision is successfully conducted. The present study reports three self-paced reading experiments that investigate these issues, using temporarily ambiguous complement sentences. Experiment 1 showed that temporarily ambiguous complement sentences are misanalysed during sentence processing, which subsequently causes garden-path effects and lingering misinterpretation. Experiment 2 suggested that non-syntactic information is immediately used to recover the globally correct analysis. However, there was an indication that the incorrect analysis remains activated. Experiment 3 revealed that syntactic revision is conducted in complement sentences without regressive eye movements. The present study argues that the good-enough account can explain these results if this account assumes that a syntactic processing heuristic such as the Canonical Sentoid Strategy is used during the processing of temporarily ambiguous complement sentences.

Syntactic parsing

2007 ◽  
pp. 288-308 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roger P. G. van Gompel ◽  
Martin J. Pickering
Keyword(s):  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Syntactic Structure ◽  
Working Memory Capacity ◽  
Structural Complexity ◽  
Relevant Information ◽  
Syntactic Processing ◽  
Sources Of Information ◽  
Syntactic Structures ◽  
The Mind ◽  
Crucial Part

A crucial part of understanding a sentence is to construct its syntactic structure. Without this, it would be very difficult for language users to determine that sentence with different word orders. The processes involved in constructing syntactic structures during language comprehension are commonly referred to as parsing or syntactic processing. Sentence processing theories can roughly be divided into interactive accounts, in which all relevant information can be used immediately; and modular accounts, in which some information can be used immediately but some cannot. Modular models assume that the mind consists of modules which perform very specific processes. In contrast, interactive accounts assume that the processor immediately draws upon all possible sources of information during sentence processing, including semantics, discourse context, and information about the frequency of syntactic structures. In addition to the above, this article discusses syntax and semantics, lexical frequency, discourse effects, working memory capacity, structural complexity, and adoption of ungrammatical syntactic structures.

scholarly journals What Role Does the Anterior Temporal Lobe Play in Sentence-level Processing? Neural Correlates of Syntactic Processing in Semantic Variant Primary Progressive Aphasia

2014 ◽  
Vol 26 (5) ◽  
pp. 970-985 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen M. Wilson ◽  
Andrew T. DeMarco ◽  
Maya L. Henry ◽  
Benno Gesierich ◽  
Miranda Babiak ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Semantic Processing ◽  
Syntactic Structure ◽  
Primary Progressive Aphasia ◽  
Neural Correlates ◽  
Syntactic Processing ◽  
Functional Reorganization ◽  
Structure Building ◽  
Sentence Level ◽  
Left Posterior

Neuroimaging and neuropsychological studies have implicated the anterior temporal lobe (ATL) in sentence-level processing, with syntactic structure-building and/or combinatorial semantic processing suggested as possible roles. A potential challenge to the view that the ATL is involved in syntactic aspects of sentence processing comes from the clinical syndrome of semantic variant primary progressive aphasia (semantic PPA; also known as semantic dementia). In semantic PPA, bilateral neurodegeneration of the ATLs is associated with profound lexical semantic deficits, yet syntax is strikingly spared. The goal of this study was to investigate the neural correlates of syntactic processing in semantic PPA to determine which regions normally involved in syntactic processing are damaged in semantic PPA and whether spared syntactic processing depends on preserved functionality of intact regions, preserved functionality of atrophic regions, or compensatory functional reorganization. We scanned 20 individuals with semantic PPA and 24 age-matched controls using structural MRI and fMRI. Participants performed a sentence comprehension task that emphasized syntactic processing and minimized lexical semantic demands. We found that, in controls, left inferior frontal and left posterior temporal regions were modulated by syntactic processing, whereas anterior temporal regions were not significantly modulated. In the semantic PPA group, atrophy was most severe in the ATLs but extended to the posterior temporal regions involved in syntactic processing. Functional activity for syntactic processing was broadly similar in patients and controls; in particular, whole-brain analyses revealed no significant differences between patients and controls in the regions modulated by syntactic processing. The atrophic left ATL did show abnormal functionality in semantic PPA patients; however, this took the unexpected form of a failure to deactivate. Taken together, our findings indicate that spared syntactic processing in semantic PPA depends on preserved functionality of structurally intact left frontal regions and moderately atrophic left posterior temporal regions, but no functional reorganization was apparent as a consequence of anterior temporal atrophy and dysfunction. These results suggest that the role of the ATL in sentence processing is less likely to relate to syntactic structure-building and more likely to relate to higher-level processes such as combinatorial semantic processing.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document