Advanced Course in Psycholinguistics and Neurolinguistics ... · INTRO: Possible and Impossible Grammars Is Broca the seat of Syntax? Advanced Course in Psycholinguistics and Neurolinguistics

INTRO:Possible and Impossible Grammars

Is Broca the seat of Syntax?

Advanced Course inPsycholinguistics and Neurolinguistics

POSSIBLE AND IMPOSSIBLE LANGUAGES

Master on Linguistics(Kepa Erdozia and Itziar Laka)

2011/01/26

Master on Linguistics (Kepa Erdozia and Itziar Laka) Advanced Course in Psycholinguistics and Neurolinguistics



Contents

1 INTRO:The Brain and the Enigma of Impossible LanguagesNeuroimaging Methods: (f)MRI

2 Possible and Impossible GrammarsMoro et al. 2001Tettamanti et al. 2002Musso et al. 2003

3 Is Broca the seat of Syntax?




Contents







Contents







The Brain and the Enigma of Impossible LanguagesNeuroimaging Methods: (f)MRI

The brain and the enigma of impossible languages

based on Moro, Andrea. 2008. The Boundaries of Babel. The MIT Press. Cambridge, Massachusetts.

From Broca to Christopher

Phrenology: The study of the psychological characteristicsof an individual based on the external shape of thecranium.

Bouillard (Student of F.J. Gall) became convinced that theability to speak was located in a specific area of the brain,the frontal lobes.Aubertin (son of Bouillard) was in the AnthropologicalSociety meeting where Broca described the case ofMonsieur Leborgne.

Monsieur Leborgne (TAN, †1861): ”Loss of speech, chronicsoftening, partial destruction of the Left Frontal Lobe of thebrain” (Broca, 1861). The road to studying the biologicalbasis of language had already been taken.



















Bouillard (Student of F.J. Gall) became convinced that theability to speak was located in a specific area of the brain,the frontal lobes.

Aubertin (son of Bouillard) was in the AnthropologicalSociety meeting where Broca described the case ofMonsieur Leborgne.



























From Broca to ChristopherXX Century: Fifties

Shannon: Information Theory, the grammars of humanlanguage could be interpreted using statistics.Chomsky working on automated translation. The structureof grammar is more complex than statistically basedmodels. ”The fact that all normal children acquireesseantially comparable grammar of great complexity withremarkable rapidity suggests that human beings aresomehow specially designed to do this” (Chomsky 1959)

Christopher was born in 1962.

In most common intelligence tests, below average.Dissociation between language and other cognitive skillscoincided with the knowledge of many languages and theability to learn new ones.Berber vs. Epun. Control subjects learned the Epun rulesusing general intelligence.







Shannon: Information Theory, the grammars of humanlanguage could be interpreted using statistics.

Chomsky working on automated translation. The structureof grammar is more complex than statistically basedmodels. ”The fact that all normal children acquireesseantially comparable grammar of great complexity withremarkable rapidity suggests that human beings aresomehow specially designed to do this” (Chomsky 1959)




























Christopher was born in 1962.In most common intelligence tests, below average.

Dissociation between language and other cognitive skillscoincided with the knowledge of many languages and theability to learn new ones.Berber vs. Epun. Control subjects learned the Epun rulesusing general intelligence.








Christopher was born in 1962.In most common intelligence tests, below average.Dissociation between language and other cognitive skillscoincided with the knowledge of many languages and theability to learn new ones.

Berber vs. Epun. Control subjects learned the Epun rulesusing general intelligence.








Christopher was born in 1962.In most common intelligence tests, below average.Dissociation between language and other cognitive skillscoincided with the knowledge of many languages and theability to learn new ones.Berber vs. Epun. Control subjects learned the Epun rulesusing general intelligence.





Fundational aspects of human language

What is ”GRAMMAR”?

What are the parts that it is made of?How are they connected?When do they activate?





Fundational aspects of human language

What is ”GRAMMAR”?What are the parts that it is made of?How are they connected?When do they activate?





Fundamental aspects of human language

Grammar as a filter of combinations of primitive elements

Primitive Elements (Lexicon)Dante, one, Beatrice, day, saw, and, astonished, was

After the filtersOne day Dante saw Beatrice and was astonishedor One day Beatrice saw Dante and was astonishedor Dante saw Beatrice or Beatrice was astonishedor even Dante saw Beatrice one day and was astonished

However, there are impossible combinations, including:Dante and astonished was one day Beatriceand Astonished Beatrice one.







Primitive Elements (Lexicon)Dante, one, Beatrice, day, saw, and, astonished, wasAfter the filtersOne day Dante saw Beatrice and was astonishedor One day Beatrice saw Dante and was astonishedor Dante saw Beatrice or Beatrice was astonishedor even Dante saw Beatrice one day and was astonished








Primitive Elements (Lexicon)Dante, one, Beatrice, day, saw, and, astonished, wasAfter the filtersOne day Dante saw Beatrice and was astonishedor One day Beatrice saw Dante and was astonishedor Dante saw Beatrice or Beatrice was astonishedor even Dante saw Beatrice one day and was astonished







Piattelli-Palmarini(1980)Instructive Grammars: The rules that describe the possiblecombinations.

Selective Grammars: The rules that eliminate theimpossible combinations.

By finding the impossible combinations, we will discover thosegeneral principles that help us understand how grammar works.






Piattelli-Palmarini(1980)Instructive Grammars: The rules that describe the possiblecombinations.Selective Grammars: The rules that eliminate theimpossible combinations.




















Primitive Elements (Lexicon)

Combining its phoneme repertoire Standard American Englishcould have 238 millions of billions of different words.What is the filter that reduces the huge number of words builtout of a certain phoneme inventory?

Filters

syllable structure, vowel is required in EnglishMorphemes cannot be combined freely.Syntax or combining words







Filterssyllable structure, vowel is required in English

Morphemes cannot be combined freely.Syntax or combining words







Filterssyllable structure, vowel is required in EnglishMorphemes cannot be combined freely.

Syntax or combining words







Filterssyllable structure, vowel is required in EnglishMorphemes cannot be combined freely.Syntax or combining words






ERRORS: Errors are natural in grammar.

XEasy to produce errors because language is one of the mostcomplex system that we deal with every day.XEasy to detect because it is under our conscius examinationwhen we are producing and comprehending.

Error as deviation: Double Neg. I don’t see nothing*Error as omision: Not all possible combinations of syntacticrules are attested (Greenberg)Error as tool

to distinguish different components of grammarbrain damages

XError has become a founding central factor in the theory andpractice of modern research.






ERRORS: Errors are natural in grammar.XEasy to produce errors because language is one of the mostcomplex system that we deal with every day.

XEasy to detect because it is under our conscius examinationwhen we are producing and comprehending.









ERRORS: Errors are natural in grammar.XEasy to produce errors because language is one of the mostcomplex system that we deal with every day.XEasy to detect because it is under our conscius examinationwhen we are producing and comprehending.










Error as deviation: Double Neg. I don’t see nothing*

Error as omision: Not all possible combinations of syntacticrules are attested (Greenberg)Error as tool









Error as deviation: Double Neg. I don’t see nothing*Error as omision: Not all possible combinations of syntacticrules are attested (Greenberg)

Error as tool



















to distinguish different components of grammar

brain damages

































Brain: Brodmann’s areas





IFG, STS, ...





(functional) Magnetic Resonance Imaging





(functional) Magnetic Resonance Imaging





MRI Physics

A proton has a positive electric charge, and because itspins around itself, it produces a small magnetic field.Miniature bar magnet with a north and south pole





MRI Physics

Spins align with magnetic field B0

Outside scanner Inside scanner





MRI image: T1

T1: Spins go back to up/downstates.

T1 is unique to every tissue:Time constant T1 is defined asthe point where 63% of themagnetization M has recoveredalignment with B0

T1 relaxation called longitudinalrelaxation.Returning to equilibrium





MRI image: T1

T1: Spins go back to up/downstates.T1 is unique to every tissue:Time constant T1 is defined asthe point where 63% of themagnetization M has recoveredalignment with B0






MRI image: T1


T1 relaxation called longitudinalrelaxation.

Returning to equilibrium





MRI image: T1







fMRI: BOLD Response





Supplying Energy

Capillary networks supply glucose and oxigen.Haemoglobin carries glucose and oxigen to the neurons.





What does BOLD measure?

Changes in Magnetic properties of Haemoglobin

More oxyhaemoglobin → increase signal

More deoxyhaemoglobin → decrease signal

So... we are NOT measuring oxigen usage directly





Haemodynamic Response Function

1 Initial Dip.2 Oversupply of oxygenated blod.3 Decrease before return to baseline.





fMRI: Pros and Cons

ProsGreat spatial resolution

Cuantitative changes in specific brain areasGlobal Techniques (neural networks)

Cons

Poor temporal resolutionNoisy ScannerLimited space inside the magnet





fMRI: Pros and Cons

ProsGreat spatial resolutionCuantitative changes in specific brain areas

Global Techniques (neural networks)

Cons






fMRI: Pros and Cons

ProsGreat spatial resolutionCuantitative changes in specific brain areasGlobal Techniques (neural networks)

Cons






fMRI: Pros and Cons


Cons






fMRI: Pros and Cons


ConsPoor temporal resolution

Noisy ScannerLimited space inside the magnet





fMRI: Pros and Cons


ConsPoor temporal resolutionNoisy Scanner

Limited space inside the magnet





fMRI: Pros and Cons


ConsPoor temporal resolutionNoisy ScannerLimited space inside the magnet




Moro et al. 2001Tettamanti et al. 2002Musso et al. 2003

Possible and Impossible Grammars

Smith, Tsimpli, and Ouhalla 1993Polyglot savant Christopher.Experimentally exposed to

Berber: North African language

Epun: invented language containing rules that violatedcertain aspects of Universal Grammar.

The researchers found that while Christopher learned Berbereasily,he found it difficult to learn certain types of rules in Epun,particularly rules that violated structure dependency.







Berber: North African languageEpun: invented language containing rules that violatedcertain aspects of Universal Grammar.






















Moro et al. 2001

AIMSIsolate functional correlates of morphological and syntacticprocessingNeutralize the confounding effect of semantic component

Participants11 male (m.a. 26 y.o, range from 22 to 28)

TASKSubjects were asked to detect anomalies in pseudowords:

phonological anomaliesmorphosyntactic anomaliessyntactic anomalies





Moro et al. 2001









Moro et al. 2001









Moro et al. 2001

Quasi-ItalianNonwords in order to neutralize the to semantic componentInflections & Function Words (D, aux., P., pl., etc.) of Italian

Syntactic Structure couldn’t be influenced by semanticinterpretationVisually presented 3 experimental conditions and 1 baselinePET experiment





Moro et al. 2001

Quasi-ItalianNonwords in order to neutralize the to semantic componentInflections & Function Words (D, aux., P., pl., etc.) of Italian

Syntactic Structure couldn’t be influenced by semanticinterpretationVisually presented 3 experimental conditions and 1 baselinePET experiment





Moro et al. 2001

MaterialsX BASELINE

Il gulco gianeva le braleDm/sg Nm/sg V-AGRT/T3rd/sg Df/pl Nf/pl

X PHONOLOGICAL ANOMALIESIl gulco giangzleva le brale

X MORPHOSYNTACTIC ANOMALIESIl gulco gianigiata questo bralo

X SYNTACTIC ANOMALIESGulco il gianeva le brale





Moro et al. 2001: Results

Behavioral ResultsHigh accuracy in behavioral task

Functional ResultsCommon network of 3 experimental conditions (Baseline as reference):

Pars Opercularis of Brocas area (Ba 44)

Left inferior parietal lobule (Ba 40)

The cuneus (Ba 18)

Middle occipital gyrus (Ba 19 and 18)

Bilateral superior parietal lobule (Ba 7)

Bilateral precuneus (Ba 7)

Bilateral fusiform gyrus (Ba 18/37)

Cerebellum

Cerebellar vermisMaster on Linguistics (Kepa Erdozia and Itziar Laka) Advanced Course in Psycholinguistics and Neurolinguistics





Common neural network of 3 experimental conditions:

(A) (S+M+Ph)-Baseline masked with the individual simple main effect, Z > 3.09






Morphosyntactic condition vs. Phonotactic condition

Significant activactions:Circular Sulcus (BA 45)

Right homologue of Broca’s area (BA 44, 45)

Vermis

(C) (M-Ph) Z > 2.33






Syntactic and Morphosyntactic processing detected in deepcomponent of Broca’s area and in right inferior frontal region.Only for Syntactic processing: Left caudate nucleus and insula.





Moro et al. 2001: Discussion

MAIN RESULTSSyntactic and Morphosyntactic processing detected indeep component of Broca’s area and in Right InferiorFrontal regionOnly for Syntactic processing: Caudate nucleus and Insula

CONCLUSIONSSyntactic capacities are not implemented in a single area(Left and Right Broca’s areas, Basal Ganglia and theCerebellum)Lack of a complete overlap between the neurologicalcorrelates fo the syntactic and the morphosyntacticcomponents of the language faculty (distinction made intheoretical linguistics)





Moro et al. 2001: Discussion

MAIN RESULTSSyntactic and Morphosyntactic processing detected indeep component of Broca’s area and in Right InferiorFrontal regionOnly for Syntactic processing: Caudate nucleus and Insula

CONCLUSIONSSyntactic capacities are not implemented in a single area(Left and Right Broca’s areas, Basal Ganglia and theCerebellum)Lack of a complete overlap between the neurologicalcorrelates fo the syntactic and the morphosyntacticcomponents of the language faculty (distinction made intheoretical linguistics)





Tettamanti et al. 2002

fMRI Experiment

Human languages’s syntactic rules are established onhierarchical syntactic notions (Chomsky, 1995).

In human languages there are no syntactic rules that are basedon the number of words occurring in a given sentence.

AIMNeuroanatomical differences between human language rulesand no human language rules

Participants14 Italian monolinguals (7 male, m.a. 27.2 y.o., range 21 to 31)






fMRI Experiment










fMRI Experiment










fMRI Experiment










GRAMMATICAL RULES (G)Hierarchical phrase structure.G-RULE: The article immediately follows the noun it refers to.

NONGRAMMATICAL RULES (NG)Absolute position of some elements within the linear sequence of words.NG-RULE: Articles immediately follow the second word in the sentence.

TASKS

RULE ACQUISITION (RA): During the stage of acquisition a syntacticrule had to be extracted.

RULE USAGE (RU): During the stage of usage syntactic violations ofacquired rules had to be detected








TASKS

RULE ACQUISITION (RA): During the stage of acquisition a syntacticrule had to be extracted.









TASKSRULE ACQUISITION (RA): During the stage of acquisition a syntacticrule had to be extracted.









TASKSRULE ACQUISITION (RA): During the stage of acquisition a syntacticrule had to be extracted.






Tettamanti et al. 2002: Materials

QUASI-ITALIAN: 4 experimental conditions and 2 baselines

RULE ACQUISITIONa RA-baseline: reading sentences following mother language syntax.

Molte tille bilbavano il daffioDf/p Nf/p V-T/agr-past/3rd-p Art.m/s Nm/s

b G-RA: reading sentences following new syntactic rule of a G nature.Molte tille bilbavano daffio ilDf/p Nf/p V-T/agr-past/3rd-p Nm/s Art.m/s

G-RULE: D immediatelly follows the noun it refers to

c NG-RA: reading sentences following new syntactic rule of a NG nature.Molte tille il bilbavano daffioDf/p Nf/p Art.m/s V-T/agr-past/3rd-p Nm/s

NG-RULE: Art. immediatelly follows the secon word in the sentence






























4 experimental conditions and 2 baselines

RULE USAGEd RU-baseline: detecting violations of mother language syntax.

Tille molte bilbavano il daffioNf/p Df/p V-T/agr-past/3rd-p Art.m/s Nm/s

Syntactic Violation: N-D-V-Art-N → D-N-V-Art-N

e G-RU: detecting violations using the G-rule knowledge aquired in [b].Molte il tille bilbavano daffioDf/p Art.m/s Nf/p V-T/agr-past/3rd-p Nm/s

Rule Violation: D-Art-N-V-N → D-N-V-Art-N

f NG-RU: detecting rule violations using the NG-rule knowledge acquiredin [c].Il molte tille bilbavano daffioArt.m/s Df/p Nf/p V-T/agr-past/3rd-p Nm/s

Rule Violation: Art-D-N-V-N → D-N-Art-V-N































Tettamanti et al. 2002: Results

Overal main effects of rule acquisitioncompared with the baseline

Grammatical RulesOpercular portion of Broca (BA 44)Left Dorsal Premotor area (BA 6)Left Angular Gyrus (BA 39)

NonGrammtical RulesRight Middle Frontal Gyrus (BA 46)Right Superior Parietal Lobule (BA 7)






Significant temporal changes during ruleacquisition

Behavioral Data:Same difficulty in G an NG rulesacquistion

fMRI Data:More activation during G rules than NGrules acquisitionOpercular Portion of Broca (BA 44)Left InsulaLeft Superior Frontal Gyrus (BA 8)Right Ventral Inferior Frontal Gyrus (BA47)Right Inferior Parietal Lobule (BA 40)






Effects of proficiency in rule usage

Behavioral Data:






Effects of proficiency in rule usage

Behavioral Data:No significant effects comparing G andNG

fMRI Data:During G-rule usageHigh-proficiency group activatedsignificantly moreBroca’s Area (BA 44)Left Ventral Premotor Area (BA 6)





Tettamanti et al. 2002: Conclusions

X Selective and robust participation of Broca’s area in theacquisition of novel Grammatical rules as opposed toNon-Grammatical rules.

X Perisilvian brain regions could be related to adults’ secondlanguage acquisition.

X In the early stages of language acquisition, the processingof novel linguistic structures engages lateral corticalaspects of Broca’s area that supports less automaticprocesses.

Direct comparison between two types of rules showed thathuman language grammatical rules specifically activated lefthemispheric network, including Broca.









































Musso et al. 2003

AIMTo investigate the system underlying the acquisition of newlinguistic competence of two parametrically differentlanguages: Italian and Japanese.

To differentiate the rule learning based on UG and Non-UGsystems.

Participants

Japanese Experiment: 8 German natives learning realand unreal rules of Japanese (4 males; 22.6) ItalianExperiment: 8 German natives learning real and unrealrules of Italian (4 males; 24.3)





Musso et al. 2003

AIMTo investigate the system underlying the acquisition of newlinguistic competence of two parametrically differentlanguages: Italian and Japanese.To differentiate the rule learning based on UG and Non-UGsystems.

Participants






Musso et al. 2003


Participants






Musso et al. 2003


ParticipantsJapanese Experiment: 8 German natives learning realand unreal rules of Japanese (4 males; 22.6) ItalianExperiment: 8 German natives learning real and unrealrules of Italian (4 males; 24.3)





Musso et al. 2003

TasksSyntactic correctness detection: Subjects read sentences inreal and unreal language and then judged if they are correctaccording to the learned rules.

MethodsDuring the fMRI in pauses between sessions (3min, 1min foreachs rule) subjects learned 3 real grammatical rules of Italianor Japanese and 3 artificial rules of an ”unreal” language usingItalian or Japanese vocabulary.





Musso et al. 2003

TasksSyntactic correctness detection: Subjects read sentences inreal and unreal language and then judged if they are correctaccording to the learned rules.

MethodsDuring the fMRI in pauses between sessions (3min, 1min foreachs rule) subjects learned 3 real grammatical rules of Italianor Japanese and 3 artificial rules of an ”unreal” language usingItalian or Japanese vocabulary.





Musso et al. 2003

Rule LearningDuring the pauses between sessions one slide was presenteddescribing each rule (for 30 s) with sentences to clarify the rule,followed by one slide for each rule (also for 30 s) severalexamples, some of which were grammatically incorrect. Here,the subject had to judge the grammatical correcteness of thestimuli

ProcedurefMRI experiment lasted 44 min, 10 fMRI sessions.





Musso et al. 2003

Rule LearningDuring the pauses between sessions one slide was presenteddescribing each rule (for 30 s) with sentences to clarify the rule,followed by one slide for each rule (also for 30 s) severalexamples, some of which were grammatically incorrect. Here,the subject had to judge the grammatical correcteness of thestimuli

ProcedurefMRI experiment lasted 44 min, 10 fMRI sessions.





Musso et al. 2003: Materials

3 rules of real and 3 rules of unreal Italian

Real Italian: Hierarchical RelationsNull-subject parameterPassive formationSubordinate declarative

Unreal Italian: Lineal order of wordsNegative construction: Put negative no after the third wordin the sentenceInterrogative: Invert the word orderArticle agreement: Indefinite article always agree with thelast noun






















ITALIAN MATERIALS






3 rules of real and 3 rules of unreal Japanes

Real Japanese: Hierarchical RelationsMain clause word order. Jap→SOV; Ger→SVOPassive formation. Jap→-reru; Ger→ge-Subordinate declarative. Jap→S[SVO]V; Ger→SV[SOV]

Unreal Italian: Lineal order of wordsNegative construction: Put negative nai after the third wordin the sentenceInterrogative: Invert the word orderPast tense construction: Put -ta after on the second wordcounting from right to left.






















JAPANESE MATERIALS





Musso et al. 2003: Results

Behavioral Results

Italian Japanese

No differences in acquisition ofreal/unreal Italian andJapanese

Real grammars learning taskswere faster than unreal inItalian (P < .0001) and inJapanese (P < .03).





Musso et al. 2003: fMRI Results

Interac: performance and type of rule (real vs. unreal It)

Changes in BOLDsignal in the LeftInferior FrontalGyrus






Common patterns of activation of real and unreal Italian

Right InferiorFrontal Gyrus






Interaction: performance and tye pof rule in Jap







Conjunction of analysis real-unreal learning experiment(Jap)






Musso et al. 2003: Conclusions

ConclusionThe results indicate that the Left Inferior Frontal Gyrus iscentrally involved in the acquisition of new linguisticcompetence, but only when the new language is based onprinciples of UG.

Increase of activation over time in Broca’s area was specific forreal language acquisition only, independent of the languagetype

Main ResultIncrease of activation over time in Broca’s area was specific forreal language acquisition only, independent of the kind oflanguage






ConclusionThe results indicate that the Left Inferior Frontal Gyrus iscentrally involved in the acquisition of new linguisticcompetence, but only when the new language is based onprinciples of UG.Increase of activation over time in Broca’s area was specific forreal language acquisition only, independent of the languagetype







ConclusionThe results indicate that the Left Inferior Frontal Gyrus iscentrally involved in the acquisition of new linguisticcompetence, but only when the new language is based onprinciples of UG.Increase of activation over time in Broca’s area was specific forreal language acquisition only, independent of the languagetype





Kaan and Swaab 2002

Is Broca the seat of Syntax?Evidence from Aphasia

Left Anterior Temporal Lobe is also important in syntacticprocessing

Broca’s aphasics do not completely lack knowledge of syntax.

Broca’s aphasics exhibit semantic deficits

Broca’s aphasics not deficit of knowledge but a processing deficit

The brain areas that are damaged in Broca’saphasics need not to be the areas wheresyntactic knowledge is stored.




Kaan and Swaab 2002










Kaan and Swaab 2002










Kaan and Swaab 2002










Kaan and Swaab 2002










Kaan and Swaab 2002










Isolating Syntax

In previous Literature1 Complex vs Simple sentences

2 Sentences vs. Lists of Words3 Senteces vs. Jabberwocky4 Correct vs. Incorrect sentences




Isolating Syntax

In previous Literature1 Complex vs Simple sentences2 Sentences vs. Lists of Words

3 Senteces vs. Jabberwocky4 Correct vs. Incorrect sentences




Isolating Syntax

In previous Literature1 Complex vs Simple sentences2 Sentences vs. Lists of Words3 Senteces vs. Jabberwocky

4 Correct vs. Incorrect sentences




Isolating Syntax

In previous Literature1 Complex vs Simple sentences2 Sentences vs. Lists of Words3 Senteces vs. Jabberwocky4 Correct vs. Incorrect sentences




Complex vs. Simple Sentences

BROCA (BA 44, 45)Complex conditions involveadditional syntacticoperations

Canonical Word OrderReconstructions vs. WorkingMemory Load




Complex vs. Simple Sentences

BROCA (BA 44, 45)Complex conditions involveadditional syntacticoperationsCanonical Word OrderReconstructions vs. WorkingMemory Load




Sentences vs. Words

no Broca activation

Very simple sentences were used.

→ Broca is not necessarily involvedin syntactic operations

but only comes into play when theprocessing load increases.

Temporal Lobe

sometimes bilateral

patients with morphosyntacticproblems

superior and middle temporal gyri(BA 22, 21)




Jabberwocky and Syntactic Prose

examplesThe mumphy folofel fonged the apole trecon.The infuriated water grabbed the justifieddream.

STSPosterior Superior Temporal SulcusAnterior Superior Temporal Sulcus




Correct vs. Incorrect Sentences

Syntactic violations haveconsequences for the semanticinterpretation.Detecting syntactic errors ofJabberwocky enlarge activity inleft BA45




Kaan and Swaab 2002

Conclusions 11 Is there a specific area for syntax?

NO

2 Temporal LobeAnterior, middle and posterior parts of the Superior andMiddle Temporal Gyri.

3 Are areas unique for syntactic processing?NOBroca and Temporal Lobe’s areas has been activated inprocessing of syntactically unconnected words, lists ofsyllables, semantics, even during music perception




Kaan and Swaab 2002


NO2 Temporal Lobe

Anterior, middle and posterior parts of the Superior andMiddle Temporal Gyri.





Kaan and Swaab 2002


NO2 Temporal Lobe

Anterior, middle and posterior parts of the Superior andMiddle Temporal Gyri.





Kaan and Swaab 2002

Conclusions 2Syntactic processing involves multiple brain areas.

None of these areas are unique for syntax.Brain modularity for language remains unclear.Middle and superior temporal lobes → lexical processing.Anterior temporal lobe → encoding information.Borca → storing non-integrated material.Right areas → Prosody, ambiguity, discourse processing,and error detection.




Kaan and Swaab 2002

Conclusions 2Syntactic processing involves multiple brain areas.None of these areas are unique for syntax.

Brain modularity for language remains unclear.Middle and superior temporal lobes → lexical processing.Anterior temporal lobe → encoding information.Borca → storing non-integrated material.Right areas → Prosody, ambiguity, discourse processing,and error detection.




Kaan and Swaab 2002

Conclusions 2Syntactic processing involves multiple brain areas.None of these areas are unique for syntax.Brain modularity for language remains unclear.

Middle and superior temporal lobes → lexical processing.Anterior temporal lobe → encoding information.Borca → storing non-integrated material.Right areas → Prosody, ambiguity, discourse processing,and error detection.




Kaan and Swaab 2002

Conclusions 2Syntactic processing involves multiple brain areas.None of these areas are unique for syntax.Brain modularity for language remains unclear.Middle and superior temporal lobes → lexical processing.

Anterior temporal lobe → encoding information.Borca → storing non-integrated material.Right areas → Prosody, ambiguity, discourse processing,and error detection.




Kaan and Swaab 2002

Conclusions 2Syntactic processing involves multiple brain areas.None of these areas are unique for syntax.Brain modularity for language remains unclear.Middle and superior temporal lobes → lexical processing.Anterior temporal lobe → encoding information.

Borca → storing non-integrated material.Right areas → Prosody, ambiguity, discourse processing,and error detection.




Kaan and Swaab 2002

Conclusions 2Syntactic processing involves multiple brain areas.None of these areas are unique for syntax.Brain modularity for language remains unclear.Middle and superior temporal lobes → lexical processing.Anterior temporal lobe → encoding information.Borca → storing non-integrated material.

Right areas → Prosody, ambiguity, discourse processing,and error detection.




Kaan and Swaab 2002

Conclusions 2Syntactic processing involves multiple brain areas.None of these areas are unique for syntax.Brain modularity for language remains unclear.Middle and superior temporal lobes → lexical processing.Anterior temporal lobe → encoding information.Borca → storing non-integrated material.Right areas → Prosody, ambiguity, discourse processing,and error detection.




The End


Documents

Advanced Course in Psycholinguistics and Neurolinguistics ... · INTRO: Possible and Impossible Grammars Is Broca the seat of Syntax? Advanced Course in Psycholinguistics and Neurolinguistics