Imaging the past: Neural activation in frontal and temporal regions during regular and irregular past-tense processing

Joanisse, Marc F.; Seidenberg, Mark S.

doi:10.3758/cabn.5.3.282

Cited by 68 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…One area that has been consistently implicated in the processing of both inflectional morphology and grammatical word order information is the left inferior frontal gyrus (IFG) (4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15). This could be interpreted as suggesting a fairly general role of the left IFG in grammatical processing consistent with the classical notion of Broca's area (16).…”

mentioning

confidence: 77%

“…However, other evidence suggests that IFG activation may be specific to certain types of syntactic operations and not to others that would also impose working memory load (23). As well, an account attributing IFG activation for grammatical processing solely to working memory is inconsistent with the finding of IFG activation for the comprehension (15) and production (10)(11)(12)14) of single, morphologically inflected words.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These include the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPC) (comprising the inferior frontal sulcus and the middle frontal gyrus immediately dorsal to the IFG), medial prefrontal regions, regions along the superior temporal sulcus (STS) (including the superior and middle temporal gyri), the basal ganglia (particularly the caudate nucleus), and the cerebellum (4, 8-14, 24, 28, 29). Several of these regions have also been implicated in other language functions, including lexical retrieval and phonology (14,17,18,22,28,(30)(31)(32)(33)(34)(35)(36) and working memory, nonlinguistic memory, and sequencing (26,37,38). As noted above, the ability to maintain the words of a sentence in working memory, in the correct sequence, is an essential part of syntactic processing and indeed several models of syntactic processing heavily emphasize this process (e.g., 39,40).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Dissociating neural subsystems for grammar by contrasting word order and inflection

Newman

Supalla

Hauser

et al. 2010

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An important question in understanding language processing is whether there are distinct neural mechanisms for processing specific types of grammatical structure, such as syntax versus morphology, and, if so, what the basis of the specialization might be. However, this question is difficult to study: A given language typically conveys its grammatical information in one way (e.g., English marks "who did what to whom" using word order, and German uses inflectional morphology). American Sign Language permits either device, enabling a direct within-language comparison. During functional (f)MRI, native signers viewed sentences that used only word order and sentences that included inflectional morphology. The two sentence types activated an overlapping network of brain regions, but with differential patterns. Word order sentences activated left-lateralized areas involved in working memory and lexical access, including the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, the inferior frontal gyrus, the inferior parietal lobe, and the middle temporal gyrus. In contrast, inflectional morphology sentences activated areas involved in building and analyzing combinatorial structure, including bilateral inferior frontal and anterior temporal regions as well as the basal ganglia and medial temporal/limbic areas. These findings suggest that for a given linguistic function, neural recruitment may depend upon on the cognitive resources required to process specific types of linguistic cues.brain | language | sign language | syntax | neuroimaging D espite the great diversity of human languages, the neural basis of language processing has been documented in only a very few languages. To the extent that the neural underpinnings of language are truly universal, the available research may reflect quite accurately what would be found across languages. Alternatively, the fact that the grammars of different languages encode information in different ways may place different processing demands on the neurocognitive systems supporting language (1). For example, in English the order of the words in the sentence John gave his lunch to Mary encodes the grammatical "dependency relationships"-essentially, who did what to whom. Ordering the words differently would convey a different meaning or no meaning at all. In other languages such as German or American Sign Language, word order is less restricted because dependency relationships can be marked by other cues, such as tagging words with inflectional morphemes (e.g., in German, suffixes are added to words within the noun phrase to mark the noun's "case" or role in the sentence, e.g., as "doer" or "receiver" of an action). Whether these different strategies for encoding grammatical information rely on a unitary network of brain regions specialized for processing "grammar" in a broad sense, or whether they impose distinct processing demands relying on nonidentical neural mechanisms, is a fundamental question. It has implications for our understanding of the neurocognition of language, for its relationship to other ...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 77%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Dissociating neural subsystems for grammar by contrasting word order and inflection

Newman

Supalla

Hauser

et al. 2010

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Most empirical studies of the past tense have not examined how the large heterogeneity within the irregular class may contribute to dissociations between regular and irregular verbs (but see Patterson et al, 2001;Bird et al, 2003;Joanisse & Seidenberg, 2005). Such finer distinctions within the irregular class will prove critical in determining the most appropriate characterization of English past tense formation.…”

Section: Comparison Of Regulars Weak Irregulars and Strong Verbsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interpreting dissociations between regular and irregular past-tense morphology: Evidence from event-related potentials

Justus

Larsen

Davies³

et al. 2008

Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Neuropsychological dissociations between regular and irregular English past-tense morphology have been reported using a lexical-decision task in which past-tense primes immediately precede present-tense targets. We present N400 event-related potential data from healthy participants using the same design. Both regular and irregular past-tense forms primed corresponding present-tense forms, but with a longer duration for irregular verbs. Phonological control conditions suggested that differences in formal overlap between prime and target contributes to, but does not account for this difference, suggesting a link between irregular morphology and semantics. Further analysis, dividing the irregular verbs into two categories (weak irregular and strong) revealed that priming for strong verbs was reliably stronger than that for weak irregular and regular verbs, which were statistically indistinguishable from one another. We argue that although we observe a regular-irregular dissociation, the nature of this dissociation is more consistent with single-than with dual-system models of inflectional morphology.

show abstract

“…2007;Marslen-Wilson 2007) and the Cognitive views (e.g. Arnon and Snider 2010;Bybee and Scheibman 1999;Bybee and Hopper 2001;Schmitt et al 2004, Joanisse andSeidenberg 2005;Bybee 2007;Jiang and Nekrasova 2007, Wray, 2002Goldberg 2009), the jury is still out on the question of what is stored and what is not (Weinert 2010). In this paper, we present further evidence lending support to the latter view.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Empirical evidence for an inflationist lexicon

Tremblay¹

2012

Yearbook of Phraseology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although Generative and Cognitive grammars both assume that some linguistic forms are stored as wholes while others are strung together from simpler parts, they differ with respect to the units that may be stored in the lexicon, and therefore in the rules that combine them. Within the Generative framework, the determining factor for storage is regularity. In contrast, for Cognitive grammarians frequency of use is an important factor determining whether a form is stored as a whole or (de)composed on-line.The studies summarized in this paper show that speakers are sensitive not only to the (continuous) frequency/probability of use of single words but also of compositional bigrams (I really), trigrams (I really like), and quadgrams (I really like it). They clearly support the Cognitive view of a redundant, inflationist lexicon that is comprised of a myriad of more or less entrenched linguistic units of different lengths. Implications regarding the entrenchment of N-grams, the opacity of an entrenched N-gram, and the threshold for holistic storage of an N-gram are discussed.

show abstract

Imaging the past: Neural activation in frontal and temporal regions during regular and irregular past-tense processing

Cited by 68 publications

References 47 publications

Dissociating neural subsystems for grammar by contrasting word order and inflection

Dissociating neural subsystems for grammar by contrasting word order and inflection

Interpreting dissociations between regular and irregular past-tense morphology: Evidence from event-related potentials

Empirical evidence for an inflationist lexicon

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About