Publications

Abstract

Spoken language is one of the most compact and structured ways to convey information. The linguistic ability to structure individual words into larger sentence units permits speakers to express a nearly unlimited range of meanings. This ability is rooted in speakers’ knowledge of syntax and in the corresponding process of syntactic encoding. Syntactic encoding is highly automatized, operates largely outside of conscious awareness, and overlaps closely in time with several other processes of language production. With the use of positron emission tomography we investigated the cortical activations during spoken language production that are related to the syntactic encoding process. In the paradigm of restrictive scene description, utterances varying in complexity of syntactic encoding were elicited. Results provided evidence that the left Rolandic operculum, caudally adjacent to Broca’s area, is involved in both sentence-level and local (phrase-level) syntactic encoding during speaking.

Abstract

In language comprehension a syntactic representation is built up even when the input is semantically uninterpretable. We report data on brain activation during syntactic processing, from an experiment on the detection of grammatical errors in meaningless sentences. The experimental paradigm was such that the syntactic processing was distinguished from other cognitive and linguistic functions. The data reveal that in syntactic error detection an area of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, adjacent to Broca’s area, is specifically involved in the syntactic processing aspects, whereas other prefrontal areas subserve general error detection processes.

Abstract

An event-related brain potential experiment was carried out to investigate the time course of contextual influences on spoken-word recognition. Subjects were presented with spoken sentences that ended with a word that was either (a) congruent, (b) semantically anomalous, but beginning with the same initial phonemes as the congruent completion, or (c) semantically anomalous beginning with phonemes that differed from the congruent completion. In addition to finding an N400 effect in the two semantically anomalous conditions, we obtained an early negative effect in the semantically anomalous condition where word onset differed from that of the congruent completions. It was concluded that the N200 effect is related to the lexical selection process, where word-form information resulting from an initial phonological analysis and content information derived from the context interact.

Abstract

In a study by Milberg, Blumstein, and Dworetzky (1987), normal control subjects and Wernicke's and Broca's aphasics performed a lexical decision task on the third element of auditorily presented triplets of words with either a word or a nonword as target. In three of the four types of word triplets, the first and the third words were related to one or both meanings of the second word, which was semantically ambiguous. The fourth type of word triplet consisted of three unrelated, unambiguous words, functioning as baseline. Milberg et al. (1987) claim that the results for their control subjects are similar to those reported by Schvaneveldt, Meyer, and Becker's original study (1976) with the same prime types, and so interpret these as evidence for a selective lexical access of the different meanings of ambiguous words. It is argued here that Milberg et al. only partially replicate the Schvaneveldt et al. results. Moreover, the results of Milberg et al. are not fully in line with the selective access hypothesis adopted. Replication of the Milberg et al. (1987) study with Dutch materials, using both a design without and a design with repetition of the same target words for the same subjects led to the original pattern as reported by Schvaneveldt et al. (1976). In the design with four separate presentations of the same target word, a strong repetition effect was found. It is therefore argued that the discrepancy between the Milberg et al. results on the one hand, and the Schvaneveldt et al. results on the other, might be due to the absence of a control for repetition effects in the within-subject design used by Milberg et al. It is concluded that this makes the results for both normal and aphasic subjects in the latter study difficult to interpret in terms of a selective access model for normal processing.