Lack of selectivity for syntax relative to word meanings throughout the language network
To understand what you are reading now, your mind retrieves the meanings of words and constructions from a linguistic knowledge store (lexico-semantic processing) and identifies the relationships among them to construct a complex meaning (syntactic or combinatorial processing). Do these two sets of...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Cognition 2020-10, Vol.203, p.104348-104348, Article 104348 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 104348 |
---|---|
container_issue | |
container_start_page | 104348 |
container_title | Cognition |
container_volume | 203 |
creator | Fedorenko, Evelina Blank, Idan Asher Siegelman, Matthew Mineroff, Zachary |
description | To understand what you are reading now, your mind retrieves the meanings of words and constructions from a linguistic knowledge store (lexico-semantic processing) and identifies the relationships among them to construct a complex meaning (syntactic or combinatorial processing). Do these two sets of processes rely on distinct, specialized mechanisms or, rather, share a common pool of resources? Linguistic theorizing, empirical evidence from language acquisition and processing, and computational modeling have jointly painted a picture whereby lexico-semantic and syntactic processing are deeply inter-connected and perhaps not separable. In contrast, many current proposals of the neural architecture of language continue to endorse a view whereby certain brain regions selectively support syntactic/combinatorial processing, although the locus of such “syntactic hub”, and its nature, vary across proposals. Here, we searched for selectivity for syntactic over lexico-semantic processing using a powerful individual-subjects fMRI approach across three sentence comprehension paradigms that have been used in prior work to argue for such selectivity: responses to lexico-semantic vs. morpho-syntactic violations (Experiment 1); recovery from neural suppression across pairs of sentences differing in only lexical items vs. only syntactic structure (Experiment 2); and same/different meaning judgments on such sentence pairs (Experiment 3). Across experiments, both lexico-semantic and syntactic conditions elicited robust responses throughout the left fronto-temporal language network. Critically, however, no regions were more strongly engaged by syntactic than lexico-semantic processing, although some regions showed the opposite pattern. Thus, contra many current proposals of the neural architecture of language, syntactic/combinatorial processing is not separable from lexico-semantic processing at the level of brain regions—or even voxel subsets—within the language network, in line with strong integration between these two processes that has been consistently observed in behavioral and computational language research. The results further suggest that the language network may be generally more strongly concerned with meaning than syntactic form, in line with the primary function of language—to share meanings across minds. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104348 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7483589</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0010027720301670</els_id><sourcerecordid>2416274244</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c503t-3094ea9213aaee57b0af0f88e81f2d7f278fe52bf5a73dc4a113cc0d0da267853</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkU9vEzEQxS0EoqHwFcASFy4b_G_X3gtSVQFFisQFJG6W4x1vnG7sYntT8u1xlDYCLpxsjX_zZp4fQm8oWVJCu_fbpY1j8MXHsGSEHauCC_UELaiSvJGKq6doQQglDWFSXqAXOW8JIYJJ9RxdcNZ2verFAv1YGXuLo8MZJrDF7305YBcTzodQzC-cYDK1CrhEfB_TgHdggg9jxmWT4jxu4lzqFfBkwjibEXCAUsHbl-iZM1OGVw_nJfr-6eO365tm9fXzl-urVWNbwkvDSS_A9IxyYwBauSbGEacUKOrYIF3d10HL1q41kg9WGEq5tWQgg2GdVC2_RB9OunfzegeDhVCSmfRd8juTDjoar_9-CX6jx7jXUijeqr4KvHsQSPHnDLnonc8WpmoI4pw1E7RjUjAhKvr2H3Qb5xSqvUp1HWmV7Gil5ImyKeacwJ2XoUQf09NbfU5PH9PTp_Rq5-s_vZz7HuOqwNUJgPqjew9JZ-shWBh8qunpIfr_DvkNVUayKQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2466058761</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Lack of selectivity for syntax relative to word meanings throughout the language network</title><source>ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present)</source><creator>Fedorenko, Evelina ; Blank, Idan Asher ; Siegelman, Matthew ; Mineroff, Zachary</creator><creatorcontrib>Fedorenko, Evelina ; Blank, Idan Asher ; Siegelman, Matthew ; Mineroff, Zachary</creatorcontrib><description>To understand what you are reading now, your mind retrieves the meanings of words and constructions from a linguistic knowledge store (lexico-semantic processing) and identifies the relationships among them to construct a complex meaning (syntactic or combinatorial processing). Do these two sets of processes rely on distinct, specialized mechanisms or, rather, share a common pool of resources? Linguistic theorizing, empirical evidence from language acquisition and processing, and computational modeling have jointly painted a picture whereby lexico-semantic and syntactic processing are deeply inter-connected and perhaps not separable. In contrast, many current proposals of the neural architecture of language continue to endorse a view whereby certain brain regions selectively support syntactic/combinatorial processing, although the locus of such “syntactic hub”, and its nature, vary across proposals. Here, we searched for selectivity for syntactic over lexico-semantic processing using a powerful individual-subjects fMRI approach across three sentence comprehension paradigms that have been used in prior work to argue for such selectivity: responses to lexico-semantic vs. morpho-syntactic violations (Experiment 1); recovery from neural suppression across pairs of sentences differing in only lexical items vs. only syntactic structure (Experiment 2); and same/different meaning judgments on such sentence pairs (Experiment 3). Across experiments, both lexico-semantic and syntactic conditions elicited robust responses throughout the left fronto-temporal language network. Critically, however, no regions were more strongly engaged by syntactic than lexico-semantic processing, although some regions showed the opposite pattern. Thus, contra many current proposals of the neural architecture of language, syntactic/combinatorial processing is not separable from lexico-semantic processing at the level of brain regions—or even voxel subsets—within the language network, in line with strong integration between these two processes that has been consistently observed in behavioral and computational language research. The results further suggest that the language network may be generally more strongly concerned with meaning than syntactic form, in line with the primary function of language—to share meanings across minds.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0010-0277</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-7838</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104348</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32569894</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Netherlands: Elsevier B.V</publisher><subject>Brain ; Brain mapping ; Cognitive neuroscience ; Composition ; Comprehension ; Computational neuroscience ; Experiments ; Functional magnetic resonance imaging ; Information processing ; Language ; Language acquisition ; Language architecture ; Lexical semantics ; Lexicon ; Meaning ; Semantic processing ; Semantics ; Subsets ; Syntactic complexity ; Syntactic processing ; Syntactic structures ; Syntax ; Violations ; Word meaning</subject><ispartof>Cognition, 2020-10, Vol.203, p.104348-104348, Article 104348</ispartof><rights>2020 Elsevier B.V.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.</rights><rights>Copyright Elsevier Science Ltd. Oct 2020</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c503t-3094ea9213aaee57b0af0f88e81f2d7f278fe52bf5a73dc4a113cc0d0da267853</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c503t-3094ea9213aaee57b0af0f88e81f2d7f278fe52bf5a73dc4a113cc0d0da267853</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104348$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,3548,27922,27923,45993</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32569894$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Fedorenko, Evelina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Blank, Idan Asher</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Siegelman, Matthew</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mineroff, Zachary</creatorcontrib><title>Lack of selectivity for syntax relative to word meanings throughout the language network</title><title>Cognition</title><addtitle>Cognition</addtitle><description>To understand what you are reading now, your mind retrieves the meanings of words and constructions from a linguistic knowledge store (lexico-semantic processing) and identifies the relationships among them to construct a complex meaning (syntactic or combinatorial processing). Do these two sets of processes rely on distinct, specialized mechanisms or, rather, share a common pool of resources? Linguistic theorizing, empirical evidence from language acquisition and processing, and computational modeling have jointly painted a picture whereby lexico-semantic and syntactic processing are deeply inter-connected and perhaps not separable. In contrast, many current proposals of the neural architecture of language continue to endorse a view whereby certain brain regions selectively support syntactic/combinatorial processing, although the locus of such “syntactic hub”, and its nature, vary across proposals. Here, we searched for selectivity for syntactic over lexico-semantic processing using a powerful individual-subjects fMRI approach across three sentence comprehension paradigms that have been used in prior work to argue for such selectivity: responses to lexico-semantic vs. morpho-syntactic violations (Experiment 1); recovery from neural suppression across pairs of sentences differing in only lexical items vs. only syntactic structure (Experiment 2); and same/different meaning judgments on such sentence pairs (Experiment 3). Across experiments, both lexico-semantic and syntactic conditions elicited robust responses throughout the left fronto-temporal language network. Critically, however, no regions were more strongly engaged by syntactic than lexico-semantic processing, although some regions showed the opposite pattern. Thus, contra many current proposals of the neural architecture of language, syntactic/combinatorial processing is not separable from lexico-semantic processing at the level of brain regions—or even voxel subsets—within the language network, in line with strong integration between these two processes that has been consistently observed in behavioral and computational language research. The results further suggest that the language network may be generally more strongly concerned with meaning than syntactic form, in line with the primary function of language—to share meanings across minds.</description><subject>Brain</subject><subject>Brain mapping</subject><subject>Cognitive neuroscience</subject><subject>Composition</subject><subject>Comprehension</subject><subject>Computational neuroscience</subject><subject>Experiments</subject><subject>Functional magnetic resonance imaging</subject><subject>Information processing</subject><subject>Language</subject><subject>Language acquisition</subject><subject>Language architecture</subject><subject>Lexical semantics</subject><subject>Lexicon</subject><subject>Meaning</subject><subject>Semantic processing</subject><subject>Semantics</subject><subject>Subsets</subject><subject>Syntactic complexity</subject><subject>Syntactic processing</subject><subject>Syntactic structures</subject><subject>Syntax</subject><subject>Violations</subject><subject>Word meaning</subject><issn>0010-0277</issn><issn>1873-7838</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFkU9vEzEQxS0EoqHwFcASFy4b_G_X3gtSVQFFisQFJG6W4x1vnG7sYntT8u1xlDYCLpxsjX_zZp4fQm8oWVJCu_fbpY1j8MXHsGSEHauCC_UELaiSvJGKq6doQQglDWFSXqAXOW8JIYJJ9RxdcNZ2verFAv1YGXuLo8MZJrDF7305YBcTzodQzC-cYDK1CrhEfB_TgHdggg9jxmWT4jxu4lzqFfBkwjibEXCAUsHbl-iZM1OGVw_nJfr-6eO365tm9fXzl-urVWNbwkvDSS_A9IxyYwBauSbGEacUKOrYIF3d10HL1q41kg9WGEq5tWQgg2GdVC2_RB9OunfzegeDhVCSmfRd8juTDjoar_9-CX6jx7jXUijeqr4KvHsQSPHnDLnonc8WpmoI4pw1E7RjUjAhKvr2H3Qb5xSqvUp1HWmV7Gil5ImyKeacwJ2XoUQf09NbfU5PH9PTp_Rq5-s_vZz7HuOqwNUJgPqjew9JZ-shWBh8qunpIfr_DvkNVUayKQ</recordid><startdate>20201001</startdate><enddate>20201001</enddate><creator>Fedorenko, Evelina</creator><creator>Blank, Idan Asher</creator><creator>Siegelman, Matthew</creator><creator>Mineroff, Zachary</creator><general>Elsevier B.V</general><general>Elsevier Science Ltd</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7T9</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20201001</creationdate><title>Lack of selectivity for syntax relative to word meanings throughout the language network</title><author>Fedorenko, Evelina ; Blank, Idan Asher ; Siegelman, Matthew ; Mineroff, Zachary</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c503t-3094ea9213aaee57b0af0f88e81f2d7f278fe52bf5a73dc4a113cc0d0da267853</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Brain</topic><topic>Brain mapping</topic><topic>Cognitive neuroscience</topic><topic>Composition</topic><topic>Comprehension</topic><topic>Computational neuroscience</topic><topic>Experiments</topic><topic>Functional magnetic resonance imaging</topic><topic>Information processing</topic><topic>Language</topic><topic>Language acquisition</topic><topic>Language architecture</topic><topic>Lexical semantics</topic><topic>Lexicon</topic><topic>Meaning</topic><topic>Semantic processing</topic><topic>Semantics</topic><topic>Subsets</topic><topic>Syntactic complexity</topic><topic>Syntactic processing</topic><topic>Syntactic structures</topic><topic>Syntax</topic><topic>Violations</topic><topic>Word meaning</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Fedorenko, Evelina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Blank, Idan Asher</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Siegelman, Matthew</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mineroff, Zachary</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA)</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Cognition</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Fedorenko, Evelina</au><au>Blank, Idan Asher</au><au>Siegelman, Matthew</au><au>Mineroff, Zachary</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Lack of selectivity for syntax relative to word meanings throughout the language network</atitle><jtitle>Cognition</jtitle><addtitle>Cognition</addtitle><date>2020-10-01</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>203</volume><spage>104348</spage><epage>104348</epage><pages>104348-104348</pages><artnum>104348</artnum><issn>0010-0277</issn><eissn>1873-7838</eissn><abstract>To understand what you are reading now, your mind retrieves the meanings of words and constructions from a linguistic knowledge store (lexico-semantic processing) and identifies the relationships among them to construct a complex meaning (syntactic or combinatorial processing). Do these two sets of processes rely on distinct, specialized mechanisms or, rather, share a common pool of resources? Linguistic theorizing, empirical evidence from language acquisition and processing, and computational modeling have jointly painted a picture whereby lexico-semantic and syntactic processing are deeply inter-connected and perhaps not separable. In contrast, many current proposals of the neural architecture of language continue to endorse a view whereby certain brain regions selectively support syntactic/combinatorial processing, although the locus of such “syntactic hub”, and its nature, vary across proposals. Here, we searched for selectivity for syntactic over lexico-semantic processing using a powerful individual-subjects fMRI approach across three sentence comprehension paradigms that have been used in prior work to argue for such selectivity: responses to lexico-semantic vs. morpho-syntactic violations (Experiment 1); recovery from neural suppression across pairs of sentences differing in only lexical items vs. only syntactic structure (Experiment 2); and same/different meaning judgments on such sentence pairs (Experiment 3). Across experiments, both lexico-semantic and syntactic conditions elicited robust responses throughout the left fronto-temporal language network. Critically, however, no regions were more strongly engaged by syntactic than lexico-semantic processing, although some regions showed the opposite pattern. Thus, contra many current proposals of the neural architecture of language, syntactic/combinatorial processing is not separable from lexico-semantic processing at the level of brain regions—or even voxel subsets—within the language network, in line with strong integration between these two processes that has been consistently observed in behavioral and computational language research. The results further suggest that the language network may be generally more strongly concerned with meaning than syntactic form, in line with the primary function of language—to share meanings across minds.</abstract><cop>Netherlands</cop><pub>Elsevier B.V</pub><pmid>32569894</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104348</doi><tpages>1</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0010-0277 |
ispartof | Cognition, 2020-10, Vol.203, p.104348-104348, Article 104348 |
issn | 0010-0277 1873-7838 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7483589 |
source | ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present) |
subjects | Brain Brain mapping Cognitive neuroscience Composition Comprehension Computational neuroscience Experiments Functional magnetic resonance imaging Information processing Language Language acquisition Language architecture Lexical semantics Lexicon Meaning Semantic processing Semantics Subsets Syntactic complexity Syntactic processing Syntactic structures Syntax Violations Word meaning |
title | Lack of selectivity for syntax relative to word meanings throughout the language network |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-14T07%3A37%3A02IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Lack%20of%20selectivity%20for%20syntax%20relative%20to%20word%20meanings%20throughout%20the%20language%20network&rft.jtitle=Cognition&rft.au=Fedorenko,%20Evelina&rft.date=2020-10-01&rft.volume=203&rft.spage=104348&rft.epage=104348&rft.pages=104348-104348&rft.artnum=104348&rft.issn=0010-0277&rft.eissn=1873-7838&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104348&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2416274244%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2466058761&rft_id=info:pmid/32569894&rft_els_id=S0010027720301670&rfr_iscdi=true |