Publications

Abstract

This study investigated two questions. One is: To what degree is sentence processing beyond single words independent of the input modality (speech vs. reading)? The second question is: Which parts of the network recruited by both modalities is sensitive to syntactic complexity? These questions were investigated by having more than 200 participants read or listen to well-formed sentences or series of unconnected words. A largely left-hemisphere frontotemporoparietal network was found to be supramodal in nature, i.e., independent of input modality. In addition, the left inferior frontal gyrus (LIFG) and the left posterior middle temporal gyrus (LpMTG) were most clearly associated with left-branching complexity. The left anterior temporal lobe (LaTL) showed the greatest sensitivity to sentences that differed in right-branching complexity. Moreover, activity in LIFG and LpMTG increased from sentence onset to end, in parallel with an increase of the left-branching complexity. While LIFG, bilateral anterior temporal lobe, posterior MTG, and left inferior parietal lobe (LIPL) all contribute to the supramodal unification processes, the results suggest that these regions differ in their respective contributions to syntactic complexity related processing. The consequences of these findings for neurobiological models of language processing are discussed.

Abstract

The study develops a neurocomputational architecture for grammatical processing in language production and language comprehension (grammatical encoding and decoding, respectively). It seeks to answer two questions. First, how is online syntactic structure formation of the complexity required by natural-language grammars possible in a fixed, preexisting neural network without the need for online creation of new connections or associations? Second, is it realistic to assume that the seemingly disparate instantiations of syntactic structure formation in grammatical encoding and grammatical decoding can run on the same neural infrastructure? This issue is prompted by accumulating experimental evidence for the hypothesis that the mechanisms for grammatical decoding overlap with those for grammatical encoding to a considerable extent, thus inviting the hypothesis of a single “grammatical coder.” The paper answers both questions by providing the blueprint for a syntactic structure formation mechanism that is entirely based on prewired circuitry (except for referential processing, which relies on the rapid learning capacity of the hippocampal complex), and can subserve decoding as well as encoding tasks. The model builds on the “Unification Space” model of syntactic parsing developed by Vosse & Kempen (2000, 2008, 2009). The design includes a neurocomputational mechanism for the treatment of an important class of grammatical movement phenomena.

Abstract

Four probe latency experiments show that the ‘constituent boundary effect’ (transitions between constituents are more difficult than within constituents) is a retrieval and not a storage phenomenon. The experimental logic used is called paraphrastic reproduction: after verbatim memorization of some sentences, subjects were instructed to reproduce them both in their original wording and in the form of sentences that, whilst preserving the original meaning, embodied different syntactic constructions. Syntactic constructions are defined as pairs which consist of a pattern of conceptual information and a syntactic scheme, i.e. a sequence of syntactic word categories and function words. For example, the sequence noun + finite intransitive main verb (‘John runs’) expresses a conceptual actor-action relationship. It is proposed that for each overlearned and simple syntactic construction there exists a retrieval plan which does the following. It searches through the long-term memory information that has been designated as the conceptual content of the utterance(s) to be produced, looking for a token of its conceptual pattern. The retrieved information is then cast into the format of its syntactic scheme. The organization of such plans is held responsible for the constituent boundary effect.