Advanced Course in Psycholinguistics and Neurolinguistics ... · Psycholinguistics and Neurolinguistics LANGUAGE LEARNING Master on Linguistics (Kepa Erdozia and Itziar Laka) 2011/01/26

Intro: Properties of Natural LanguagesArtificial Grammar Learning

Advanced Course inPsycholinguistics and Neurolinguistics

LANGUAGE LEARNING

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: Properties of Natural LanguagesBiological Basis of LanguageThe Hierarchy of Grammars

2 Artificial Grammar LearningTransitional ProbabilitiesPossible and Impossible GrammarsFSG vs. PSG



Contents

1 Intro: Properties of Natural LanguagesBiological Basis of LanguageThe Hierarchy of Grammars

2 Artificial Grammar LearningTransitional ProbabilitiesPossible and Impossible GrammarsFSG vs. PSG



Biological Basis of LanguageThe Hierarchy of Grammars

INTRO: Properties of Natural Languages

Biolgical Basis of Language (Lenneber 1967)The Hierarchy of Grammars (Chomsky 1957)




Biological Basis of Language

Eric Lenneberg 1967A system is biological if:

Its cognitive function is species specific

The specific properties of its cognitive function arereplicated in every member of the speciesThe cognitive processes and capacities associated withthis system are differentiated spontaneously withmaturationCertain aspects of behavior and cogntive function for thissystem emerge only during infancyCertain social phenomena come about by spontaneousadaptation of the behavior of the growing individual to thebehavior of other individuals around him






Its cognitive function is species specificThe specific properties of its cognitive function arereplicated in every member of the species

The cognitive processes and capacities associated withthis system are differentiated spontaneously withmaturationCertain aspects of behavior and cogntive function for thissystem emerge only during infancyCertain social phenomena come about by spontaneousadaptation of the behavior of the growing individual to thebehavior of other individuals around him






Its cognitive function is species specificThe specific properties of its cognitive function arereplicated in every member of the speciesThe cognitive processes and capacities associated withthis system are differentiated spontaneously withmaturation

Certain aspects of behavior and cogntive function for thissystem emerge only during infancyCertain social phenomena come about by spontaneousadaptation of the behavior of the growing individual to thebehavior of other individuals around him






Its cognitive function is species specificThe specific properties of its cognitive function arereplicated in every member of the speciesThe cognitive processes and capacities associated withthis system are differentiated spontaneously withmaturationCertain aspects of behavior and cogntive function for thissystem emerge only during infancy

Certain social phenomena come about by spontaneousadaptation of the behavior of the growing individual to thebehavior of other individuals around him






Its cognitive function is species specificThe specific properties of its cognitive function arereplicated in every member of the speciesThe cognitive processes and capacities associated withthis system are differentiated spontaneously withmaturationCertain aspects of behavior and cogntive function for thissystem emerge only during infancyCertain social phenomena come about by spontaneousadaptation of the behavior of the growing individual to thebehavior of other individuals around him




Biological basis of language: SPECIES SPECIFICITY

The system is likely to be part of the genetic makeup(inventory) of members of the species.

Every species has a communication system of some sort.In some kind of crickets communication behaviors ariseeven if the individuals has never heard adultscommunicating.Language for humans and bird song can be acquired onlyif the young animal has the opportunity to experience thesystem in use.





The system is likely to be part of the genetic makeup(inventory) of members of the species.Every species has a communication system of some sort.

In some kind of crickets communication behaviors ariseeven if the individuals has never heard adultscommunicating.Language for humans and bird song can be acquired onlyif the young animal has the opportunity to experience thesystem in use.





The system is likely to be part of the genetic makeup(inventory) of members of the species.Every species has a communication system of some sort.In some kind of crickets communication behaviors ariseeven if the individuals has never heard adultscommunicating.

Language for humans and bird song can be acquired onlyif the young animal has the opportunity to experience thesystem in use.





The system is likely to be part of the genetic makeup(inventory) of members of the species.Every species has a communication system of some sort.In some kind of crickets communication behaviors ariseeven if the individuals has never heard adultscommunicating.Language for humans and bird song can be acquired onlyif the young animal has the opportunity to experience thesystem in use.





Attempts teaching human communication system to animals.If other species could learn human language, then human languagewould not be species specific.

Primates do no have vocal tracks like those of humans.

Some apes have been able to acquire large lexicons and use them tocommunicate.

However, no animal has ben able to learn a creative syntatic sytem.

Smart animals can be trained to produce complex behavioralsequences for reward.

Even if people succeede in theaching animals a communication sytemincorporating syntax, the claim that human language is biologically basedwould hardly have been damaged. The fact that humans can fly under veryspecial and artificial circumstances does not challenge the claim that flight isbiologically based in birds but not in humans
































































Biological basis of language: UNIVERSALITY

All humans babies are born with a brain that is geneticallyprepared to organize linguistic information.All human languages have universal properties.

7000 languages in the world.

However, there are profound similarities among thelanguages of the world.These similarities result from the way the human brainorganizes and processes linguistic information.All languages have phonology, lexicon, and syntax.The organization of all human languages is the same.Piraha in Brazil is said that lacks embedding syntax(Everett 2005) However Nevins et al (2009) analyzedproperly the langauge showing recursive constructions.






7000 languages in the world.However, there are profound similarities among thelanguages of the world.

These similarities result from the way the human brainorganizes and processes linguistic information.All languages have phonology, lexicon, and syntax.The organization of all human languages is the same.Piraha in Brazil is said that lacks embedding syntax(Everett 2005) However Nevins et al (2009) analyzedproperly the langauge showing recursive constructions.






7000 languages in the world.However, there are profound similarities among thelanguages of the world.These similarities result from the way the human brainorganizes and processes linguistic information.

All languages have phonology, lexicon, and syntax.The organization of all human languages is the same.Piraha in Brazil is said that lacks embedding syntax(Everett 2005) However Nevins et al (2009) analyzedproperly the langauge showing recursive constructions.






7000 languages in the world.However, there are profound similarities among thelanguages of the world.These similarities result from the way the human brainorganizes and processes linguistic information.All languages have phonology, lexicon, and syntax.

The organization of all human languages is the same.Piraha in Brazil is said that lacks embedding syntax(Everett 2005) However Nevins et al (2009) analyzedproperly the langauge showing recursive constructions.






7000 languages in the world.However, there are profound similarities among thelanguages of the world.These similarities result from the way the human brainorganizes and processes linguistic information.All languages have phonology, lexicon, and syntax.The organization of all human languages is the same.

Piraha in Brazil is said that lacks embedding syntax(Everett 2005) However Nevins et al (2009) analyzedproperly the langauge showing recursive constructions.






7000 languages in the world.However, there are profound similarities among thelanguages of the world.These similarities result from the way the human brainorganizes and processes linguistic information.All languages have phonology, lexicon, and syntax.The organization of all human languages is the same.Piraha in Brazil is said that lacks embedding syntax(Everett 2005) However Nevins et al (2009) analyzedproperly the langauge showing recursive constructions.




Biological basis of language: Spontaneous Maturation

Language doesn’t need to be taught nor it can be suppresed.Language acquisition in the child is a naturally unfoldingprocess, much like other biologically based behaviors suchas walking.

Children don’t need specific instruction to learn to speak.Jim (18 months) and Glen (3 y.o.): hearing children of deafparents. They interact with language-pathologists and in 6moth their linguistic perfomance was appropiated for theirage.Nicaraguan Sign Language: Isolated deaf children with”home signs” created naturally a new language.





Language doesn’t need to be taught nor it can be suppresed.Language acquisition in the child is a naturally unfoldingprocess, much like other biologically based behaviors suchas walking.Children don’t need specific instruction to learn to speak.

Jim (18 months) and Glen (3 y.o.): hearing children of deafparents. They interact with language-pathologists and in 6moth their linguistic perfomance was appropiated for theirage.Nicaraguan Sign Language: Isolated deaf children with”home signs” created naturally a new language.





Language doesn’t need to be taught nor it can be suppresed.Language acquisition in the child is a naturally unfoldingprocess, much like other biologically based behaviors suchas walking.Children don’t need specific instruction to learn to speak.Jim (18 months) and Glen (3 y.o.): hearing children of deafparents. They interact with language-pathologists and in 6moth their linguistic perfomance was appropiated for theirage.

Nicaraguan Sign Language: Isolated deaf children with”home signs” created naturally a new language.





Language doesn’t need to be taught nor it can be suppresed.Language acquisition in the child is a naturally unfoldingprocess, much like other biologically based behaviors suchas walking.Children don’t need specific instruction to learn to speak.Jim (18 months) and Glen (3 y.o.): hearing children of deafparents. They interact with language-pathologists and in 6moth their linguistic perfomance was appropiated for theirage.Nicaraguan Sign Language: Isolated deaf children with”home signs” created naturally a new language.




Biological basis of language: Milestones of acquisition

Like the milestones of motor development: Infants roll over, situp, crawl, and walk at similar ages everywhere.

Babies coo in the first harf of their first year

Bable second half of their first yearFirst word, first half of the second yearBasic structures, 5 yearsAll children learn regular patterns better than irregularones (eated, sheep, balinda...)

This is exactly what one would expect if the acquisition of amental system is being developed according to a geneticallyorganized, species specific and species-universal program.






Babies coo in the first harf of their first yearBable second half of their first year

First word, first half of the second yearBasic structures, 5 yearsAll children learn regular patterns better than irregularones (eated, sheep, balinda...)







Babies coo in the first harf of their first yearBable second half of their first yearFirst word, first half of the second year

Basic structures, 5 yearsAll children learn regular patterns better than irregularones (eated, sheep, balinda...)







Babies coo in the first harf of their first yearBable second half of their first yearFirst word, first half of the second yearBasic structures, 5 years

All children learn regular patterns better than irregularones (eated, sheep, balinda...)







Babies coo in the first harf of their first yearBable second half of their first yearFirst word, first half of the second yearBasic structures, 5 yearsAll children learn regular patterns better than irregularones (eated, sheep, balinda...)



















Biological basis of language: Triggered by theenvironment

Lenneberg’s final criterion is about the necessity of stimulationfrom and interaction with the enviroment.

Certain biological system will not develop withoutenvironmental stimuli to treigger them. Children will not developlanguage if language is not accessible in their environment ornobody is there to interact with them.




The Hierarchy of Grammars

FSGPSGTransformational Grammars







Rule Extraction: Boeckx & Horsntein 2006

Question making in natural language: Yes/No Questions

Bill can sing =⇒ Can Bill sing?

RULE: Move the auxiliary to the front

Mary will believe that Frank is here

X Is Mary will believe that Frank here?X Will Mary believe that Frank is here?

NEW RULE: Move the leftmost auxiliary to the front

The man who is tall will leave now

X Is the man who tall will leave now?X Will the man who is tall leave now?

THE RULE: Move the main auxiliary to the front






Bill can sing =⇒ Can Bill sing?RULE: Move the auxiliary to the front

Mary will believe that Frank is here

X Is Mary will believe that Frank here?X Will Mary believe that Frank is here?











Mary will believe that Frank is hereX Is Mary will believe that Frank here?

X Will Mary believe that Frank is here?











Mary will believe that Frank is hereX Is Mary will believe that Frank here?X Will Mary believe that Frank is here?



































The man who is tall will leave nowX Is the man who tall will leave now?

X Will the man who is tall leave now?










The man who is tall will leave nowX Is the man who tall will leave now?X Will the man who is tall leave now?





















THE RULE: Move the main auxiliary to the frontMaster on Linguistics (Kepa Erdozia and Itziar Laka) Advanced Course in Psycholinguistics and Neurolinguistics


Transitional ProbabilitiesPossible and Impossible GrammarsFSG vs. PSG

Artificial Grammar Learning

Implicit Learning (Reber)

Transitional Probabilities (Saffran)Explicit Learning (Brocanto)Possible and Impossible Grammars (UG vs. NON-UG)Hierarchies of Grammars (FSG vs. PSG)





Implicit Learning (Reber)Transitional Probabilities (Saffran)

Explicit Learning (Brocanto)Possible and Impossible Grammars (UG vs. NON-UG)Hierarchies of Grammars (FSG vs. PSG)





Implicit Learning (Reber)Transitional Probabilities (Saffran)Explicit Learning (Brocanto)

Possible and Impossible Grammars (UG vs. NON-UG)Hierarchies of Grammars (FSG vs. PSG)





Implicit Learning (Reber)Transitional Probabilities (Saffran)Explicit Learning (Brocanto)Possible and Impossible Grammars (UG vs. NON-UG)

Hierarchies of Grammars (FSG vs. PSG)





Implicit Learning (Reber)Transitional Probabilities (Saffran)Explicit Learning (Brocanto)Possible and Impossible Grammars (UG vs. NON-UG)Hierarchies of Grammars (FSG vs. PSG)




Implicit Learning: Reber 1967

ExperimentParticipants were presented chains of letters generated byan finite state automaton (Finite State Grammar).Participants were able to dectect the chains generated bythe automaton better than chance.because of participants couldn’t reason their choices, thelearning was called implicit grammar learning.




Reber’s Grammar

Reber suggested that the process falls in a intrinsic learning mechanism ofnatural language (Reber 1989).

The nature of acquired knowledge by subjects is still source of discussion.

For instance, Perruchet et al. (1992; 1995) found that the classification canproceed from fragmentary knowledge of the bigrams constituting thegrammatical strings displayed in the study phase, rather than from anunconscious structured representation of the grammar.




Reber’s Grammar







Reber’s Grammar







Transitional Probabilities: Saffran et al. 1996

Saffran et al., 1996Participants used Transitional Probabilites betwee nonsensesyllables in order to segment continuous speech and discoverwords.They concluded that it is possible to acquire (part of) the lexiconby means of the statistical distribution of elementary unities.In natural language, if ba is always followed by by, then it iseasy to segment these two syllables as a word.














Processing TPs by Non-humans

Tamarin monkeys discrimate sequencies of syllables by means of frequencyor transitional probabilites they occur in a given input chain. (Hauser,Newport & Aslin 2001)




Brocanto (Friederici et al., 2002)

Main contributionArtificial language learners showed the same online brainactivation patterns showed by native speakers processing theirnatural language.







Biphasic ERP response to syntactic violations




Biphasic ERP response to syntactic violations:

Early Left Anterior Negativity (ELAN)

Phrase Structure Violation:

Das Baby wurde gefttert

The baby was fed

Das Baby wurde im gefttert

The baby was in the fed

Late Positivity (P600)

Syntactic Violations

Gizon-ek emakume-a ikusi dute

The-men the-woman seen have

Gizon-ek emakume-ek ikusi dute

The-men the-women seen have




Brocanto: The Language

VOCABULARY

GRAMMAR




Brocanto: The Language

VOCABULARY

GRAMMAR




Brocanto: Methods

ParticipantsTwo groups of Participants:

Trained Group: 28 subjects (15 woman, age ± 24.1). Theycompleted the training program.Non-trained Group: 31 sujbects (18 woman, age ± 23.3).They only learned the vocabulary before the ERP session.




Brocanto: Methods

Materials488 spoken sentences of 5-8 wordsSyntactic Structure: Subject-Verb-(Object)Half of stimuli contain word structure syntactic violations.

Examplesaaf trul prez nri aak fne ploxlit: the trul-piece captures horinzotally the round plox-pieceaaf trul prez nri rix fne ploxlit: the trul-piece captures horinzotally buy round plox-piece




Brocanto: Methods

Materials488 spoken sentences of 5-8 wordsSyntactic Structure: Subject-Verb-(Object)Half of stimuli contain word structure syntactic violations.

Examplesaaf trul prez nri aak fne ploxlit: the trul-piece captures horinzotally the round plox-pieceaaf trul prez nri rix fne ploxlit: the trul-piece captures horinzotally buy round plox-piece




Brocanto: Training

Trained GroupX Computer GameX Several Sessions (more than 5

hours of training per session)X Total control in production and in

comprehensionX 95% of correct responses means

high proficiency

Non training GroupMatching symbols with words untilachieving 95%




Brocanto: the Language




Brocanto: Tasks

Grammaticallity

Syntactic Task: Judge the grammaticallity of the sentences

VocabularyLexical Task: Deciced whether the visually showed symbolappeared in the previous sentence.

NoteNon trained participants executed the syntactic task based only inaesthetic considerations.




Brocanto: Tasks

Grammaticallity

Syntactic Task: Judge the grammaticallity of the sentences

VocabularyLexical Task: Deciced whether the visually showed symbolappeared in the previous sentence.

NoteNon trained participants executed the syntactic task based only inaesthetic considerations.




Brocanto: Results

Behavioral Results

Trained GroupLexical Task: 89%, SD=14)Syntactic Task: 93%, SD=4)

Non Trained GroupLexical Task: 86%, SD=5)Syntactic Task: 58%, SD=5)

Highly significant interaction between group and task :P<0.0001. The non trained group showed a robust effect oftask (P<0.0001), but not the trainied group (P<0.1).




Brocanto: Results

Behavioral Results







Brocanto: Results

Behavioral Results







Brocanto: Results

Electrophysiological ResultsTrained (N=28)Biphasic Effect

All temporal windows were significant

Non Trained (N=31)No Effect

No significant effects




Brocanto: Results

Electrophysiological ResultsTrained (N=28)Biphasic Effect

All temporal windows were significant

Non Trained (N=31)No Effect

No significant effects




Brocanto: Results

Specific rule of Brocanto: article violationcorrect: aak+N; aaf+M+Nincorrect: aaf+N; aak+M+N

�� Biphasic ERP effect.




Brocanto: Results

Specific rule of Brocanto: article violationcorrect: aak+N; aaf+M+Nincorrect: aaf+N; aak+M+N

�� Biphasic ERP effect.Master on Linguistics (Kepa Erdozia and Itziar Laka) Advanced Course in Psycholinguistics and Neurolinguistics



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 ExperimentHuman 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)





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.

TASKSRULE 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





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.

TASKSRULE 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




Tettamanti et al. 2002: Results

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)




Musso et al. 2003

3 rules of real and 3 rules of unreal ItalianX Real Italian: Hierarchical relationsX Uneal Italian: Lineal order of words

3 rules of real and 3 rules of unreal JapaneseX Real Japanese: Hierarchical relationsX Uneal Japanese: Lineal order of words




Musso et al. 2003: Results

Specific activation in Broca’s area for reallanguage acquisition only, independent ofthe language type

Real vs. Unreal Japanese

Real vs. Unreal Italian




Non Humans: Syntactic Processing (Fitch & Hauser2004)

Main ResutlsMonkeys can spontaneusly achieve a good grade ofsimplest organizative principles (FSG).Monkeys cannot achieve a good grade in sophisticatedgrammars that humans can (PSG).

ConsequentlyThe production and the perception of syntactic hierarchicalstructures is the nucleous of the underlying capacity of thehuman linguistic competence.The evolution of the language faculty, presumably, involvethe incorporation of some accient cognitive capacities ofprimates.




Fitch & Hauser 2004: Materials

Two types of sounds (A & B)with 9 different CV syllables.

FSG: (AB)n

PSG: AnBn




Fitch & Hauser 2004: Methods

Familiarization/Discrimination procedure

Cotton-top Tamarins (Saguinus oedipus)

In the afternoon, the monkeys wererepetitivelly exposed during 20 minutes to60 chains related to the grammars. Halfof the monkeys were exposed to onegrammar and the other half of monkeyswere exposed to the other grammar.

Next morning, they were tested after arefamiliarization of 2 minutes.





Familiarization/Discrimination procedure

Cotton-top Tamarins (Saguinus oedipus)

In the afternoon, the monkeys wererepetitivelly exposed during 20 minutes to60 chains related to the grammars. Halfof the monkeys were exposed to onegrammar and the other half of monkeyswere exposed to the other grammar.

Next morning, they were tested after arefamiliarization of 2 minutes.





The ability learning the rule thatgoverns the construction of anacustic sequences, without anyexplicit training, indicates thattamarins are sensitive toregularities in acustic chains andthey can recognize new chainsconsistent with the input.

Tamarins failed learning the PSG.




Fitch & Hauser 2004: Conclusions

Tamarins suffer from a specific and fundamental computationallimitation on their ability to spontaneously recognize orremember hierarchically organized acoustic structures.

Though the evolution of well-developed hierarchical processingabilities in humans might have benefited many aspects ofcognition (e.g., spatial navigation, tool use, or social cognition),this capability is one of the crucial requirements for masteringany human language. Thus, the acquisition of hierarchicalprocessing ability may have represented a critical juncture inthe evolution of the human language faculty.




FSG vs. PSG (Friederici et al. 2006)

The QuestionWhether (and how) human brain reflects differences processingFinite State Grammars (FSG) and Phrase Structure Grammars(PSG)

Main ResultsFrontal Operculum (FOP) takes care of local transitionalprobabilities.Broca’s area is responsible of processing hierarchicaldependencies.Tractography data (DTI) reveal different signs of structuralconectivity between these two brain areas providingevidence of segregation of these two areas in the leftinferior frontal cortex.




FSG vs. PSG (Friederici et al. 2006)

The QuestionWhether (and how) human brain reflects differences processingFinite State Grammars (FSG) and Phrase Structure Grammars(PSG)

Main ResultsFrontal Operculum (FOP) takes care of local transitionalprobabilities.Broca’s area is responsible of processing hierarchicaldependencies.Tractography data (DTI) reveal different signs of structuralconectivity between these two brain areas providingevidence of segregation of these two areas in the leftinferior frontal cortex.




METHODS (FSG vs. PSG)

Participants

40 native speakers of German (19 men, ± 26, SD=2.7)

Materials

Two grammars in order to compare local probabilities (FSG) and hierarchical structures(PSG).Consonant-Vowel syllable sequences presented visually.

FSG: The most simple rule system generating infinite sequences.PSG: Generating complex hierarchical structures and long distance dependencies.





Participants

40 native speakers of German (19 men, ± 26, SD=2.7)

Materials

Two grammars in order to compare local probabilities (FSG) and hierarchical structures(PSG).Consonant-Vowel syllable sequences presented visually.

FSG: The most simple rule system generating infinite sequences.PSG: Generating complex hierarchical structures and long distance dependencies.





LearningTwo days before the fMRI experiment.The learning period was divided in 12 blocks. In each block, 10correct sequences were presented. Then, 5 correct and 5 incorrectsequences were presented.Participants were instructed to extract the underlying rule from thesequence of syllables.Totally, 240 stimuli were presented.Sequences of 4, 6, and 8 syllables were used for both grammars.FSG: (AB)2, (AB)3, (AB)4

PSG: A2B2, A4B4, A4B4 (80 items each grammar).Participants must answer whether the presented sequence wascorrect or not by means of response buttons.feedback was given.Learning lasted 23 minutes.





TestIn the fMRI session, 160 new items were presented:80 corrects and 80 incorrects.

In order to avoid working memory effects, half of the sequences were4 syllables long and the other half 8 syllables. Recall that shortsequences required less working memory than long ones.

Participants had to judge whether the sequences followed the rule.Feedback was given.

Toghether with the trials, 40 nule events were presented ramdomly.




Behavioral Results (FSG vs. PSG)

During Learning

Learning PSG was harder than learning FSG:ERRORS:FSG=12%; PSG=27%; interaction of GrammarF (1.34) = 12.052,P < .001

During fMRI

Behavioral data obtained during the scanning showed that FSGwas easier than PSG:FSG=6.5%; PSG=15.5%; interaction of GrammarF (1.34) = 5.01,P < .05




Behavioral Results (FSG vs. PSG)

During Learning

Learning PSG was harder than learning FSG:ERRORS:FSG=12%; PSG=27%; interaction of GrammarF (1.34) = 12.052,P < .001

During fMRI

Behavioral data obtained during the scanning showed that FSGwas easier than PSG:FSG=6.5%; PSG=15.5%; interaction of GrammarF (1.34) = 5.01,P < .05




fMRI Results (FSG vs. PSG)

Frontal OperculumActivation for both types of grammars (FSG y PSG)No significant iteraction between Grammar Type and ViolationF (1,34) = 1.92 indicating that FOP is responsible ofprocessing two types of grammar.

Broca’s AreaOnly for PSG Grammar.

other activations

Right Temporal Region (BA21/22) for both grammars and left BA21 for PSG.These activations were not considered syntax specific because they have beenfound in semantic and syntactic processing.

Bilateral Insula for PSG. Again, these activations were not considered syntaxspecific because they were found in semantic and syntactic processing.







other activations









other activations






FOP: Activation for both typesof grammars. No significantinteraction between GrammarType and Violation

BROCA: activation only forPSG. Task difficult was notcorrelated with Broca’s activity.




Resultados de conectividad (DTI)

1 Conection of Brocawith the TemporalLobe by means ofsuperior fasciculuslongitudinalis

2 Conection of FOPwith the TemporalLobe by means offasciculus uncinatus




Conclusions (FSG vs. PSG)

The authors concluded that the processing of syntactichierarchies and recusion is the crucial aspect of humanlanguage.

They report findings pointing to the evolutive trajectory Sereportan hallazgos que apuntan hacia una trayectora evolutivacon respecto a la computacin de secuencias desde elprocesamiento de simples probabilidades hasta la computacinde estructuras jerrquicas por parte del rea de Broca que es unaregin cortical filogeneticamente ms joven que el OperculumFrontal. Este ltimo se ocupa de procesar las probabilidades detransicin.




The End


Documents

Advanced Course in Psycholinguistics and Neurolinguistics ... · Psycholinguistics and Neurolinguistics LANGUAGE LEARNING Master on Linguistics (Kepa Erdozia and Itziar Laka) 2011/01/26