Rethinking the neurological basis of language

Stowe, Laurie A.; Haverkort, Marco; Zwarts, Frans

doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2004.01.013

Cited by 140 publications

(99 citation statements)

References 147 publications

(213 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…On the other hand, logic inference did not recruit the latter areas but rather a network of regions highly similar to that reported in previous studies of deduction with sentential connectives and quantifiers (16,22). (20,21,23), and the left caudate head, often implicated in grammatical rule processing (19,24).…”

supporting

confidence: 78%

“…To isolate inference-making, activations for the inference and grammar tasks were contrasted over the whole brain and within specific regions of interest (ROIs). (18)(19)(20)(21). On the other hand, logic inference did not recruit the latter areas but rather a network of regions highly similar to that reported in previous studies of deduction with sentential connectives and quantifiers (16,22).…”

supporting

confidence: 73%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The boundaries of language and thought in deductive inference

Monti

Parsons

Osherson

2009

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

140

175

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Is human thought fully embedded in language, or do some forms of thought operate independently? To directly address this issue, we focus on inference-making, a central feature of human cognition. In a 3T fMRI study we compare logical inferences relying on sentential connectives (e.g., not, or, if . . . then) to linguistic inferences based on syntactic transformation of sentences involving ditransitive verbs (e.g., give, say, take). When contrasted with matched grammaticality judgments, logic inference alone recruited ''core'' regions of deduction [Brodmann area (BA) 10p and 8m], whereas linguistic inference alone recruited perisylvian regions of linguistic competence, among others (BA 21, 22, 37, 39, 44, and 45 and caudate). In addition, the two inferences commonly recruited a set of general ''support'' areas in frontoparietal cortex (BA 6, 7, 8, 40, and 47). The results indicate that logical inference is not embedded in natural language and confirm the relative modularity of linguistic processes.fMRI ͉ logic ͉ reasoning ͉ semantics ͉ syntax T he interplay between language and thought is pivotal to the study of human cognition (1-4). A principal issue is the extent to which thinking is embedded in language (5, 6). Within neuroscience, the matter has been explored in the domain of arithmetic (7), music (8), theory of mind (9), and deductive reasoning (10, 11). In the case of deduction, however, the evidence is highly contradictory. Some studies report that logic inference recruits neural structures traditionally engaged by linguistic processing (10, 12). These findings would suggest that thought is deeply rooted in language, a view consistent with certain psychological and philosophical perspectives on deduction (13,14). Other studies have failed to detect such activity (15, 16), which counts against the hypothesis that reasoning is tributary to language. These competing interpretations, however, are entirely based on indirect secondary observation qualitatively comparing language activations in one study to logic activations in another study across different methods, materials, paradigms, and subjects. In the present study we address this issue directly by comparing, within the same group of participants, inference based on logic connectives to inferences based on the syntax and semantics of ditransitive verbs.Consider, for example, arguments 1a and 2a in Table 1 (each with a single premise). The two arguments are equally valid in the sense that the truth of their respective premises guarantees the truth of their conclusions. But their validity rests on vocabulary from different lexical categories. The validity of argument 1a is based on the sentential connectives ''if . . . then,'' ''or,'' etc., whereas the validity of argument 2a depends on the principal phrasal verb (and similarly for the invalidity of arguments 1b and 2b, respectively). The semantic contrast between the two cases is apparent although difficult to characterize precisely (17). Roughly, connectives do not contribute to the topic of a sentence a...

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 78%

supporting

confidence: 73%

The boundaries of language and thought in deductive inference

Monti

Parsons

Osherson

2009

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

140

175

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Many of these regions are known to play a relatively general role in language processing -e.g., areas along the middle and superior temporal gyri and inferior frontal cortex (Binder et al, 1994;Ferstl and von Cramon, 2001;Huettner et al, 1989;Maguire et al, 1999;Robertson et al, 2000;St George et al, 1999), which show consistent recruitment in a broad range of word-level language tasks (Fiez and Petersen, 1998;Turkeltaub et al, 2002;Vigneau et al, 2006). However, other regions appear to be specifically recruited during comprehension of coherent text, including the anterior temporal lobes (ATL; Ferstl et al, 2007;Mazoyer et al, 1993;Stowe et al, 1998;Stowe et al, 2005) and dorsomedial prefrontal cortex (DMPFC; Hasson et al, 2007;Xu et al, 2005).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Neural substrates of narrative comprehension and memory

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When reading a narrative, comprehension and retention of information benefit considerably from the use of situation models -coherent representations of the characters, locations, and activities described in the text. Here we used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to explore the neural mechanisms supporting situation model processing. Participants read blocks of sentences that were either unrelated to one another or formed coherent narratives. A timecourse-based approach was used to identify regions that differentiated narrative-level comprehension from sentence-level comprehension. Most brain regions that showed modulation of activation during narrative-level comprehension were also modulated to a lesser extent during sentence-level comprehension, suggesting a shared reliance on general coherence-building mechanisms. However, tentative evidence was found for narrativespecific activation in dorsomedial prefrontal cortex. Additional analyses identified spatiotemporally distinct neural contributions to situation model processing, with posterior parietal regions supporting situation model construction and frontotemporal regions supporting situation model maintenance. Finally, a set of subsequent memory analyses demonstrated that the boost in comprehension and memory performance observed for coherent materials was attributable to the use of integrative situation models rather than lower-level differences in sentence-level or word-level encoding. These results clarify the functional contributions of distinct brain systems to situation model processing and their mapping onto existing psychological models of narrative comprehension.

show abstract

“…In other words, although the different ERP effects are indicative of the engagement of at least partially non-overlapping neural systems, they do not tell us which exact cortical networks are involved in the establishing of reference, or what their relationship is to the networks known to be involved in the processing of meaning. In the last decade, language comprehension researchers have begun to use functional neuroimaging techniques (e.g., fMRI) to unravel the neuronal infrastructure of semantic, syntactic and phonological processing (e.g., Bookheimer, 2002;Friederici, 2002;Kaan and Swaab, 2002;Stowe et al, 2005, for reviews). However, with the exception of a few studies focusing on cohesion/coherence processing in discourse comprehension (Ferstl and von Cramon, 2001;Robertson et al, 2000), there has been no functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) work on the neural substrate for referential processing.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On sense and reference: Examining the functional neuroanatomy of referential processing

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In an event-related fMRI study, we examined the cortical networks involved in establishing reference during language comprehension. We compared BOLD responses to sentences containing referentially ambiguous pronouns (e.g., "Ronald told Frank that he…"), referentially failing pronouns (e.g., "Rose told Emily that he…") or coherent pronouns. Referential ambiguity selectively recruited medial prefrontal regions, suggesting that readers engaged in problemsolving to select a unique referent from the discourse model. Referential failure elicited activation increases in brain regions associated with morpho-syntactic processing, and, for those readers who took failing pronouns to refer to unmentioned entities, additional regions associated with elaborative inferencing were observed. The networks activated by these two referential problems did not overlap with the network activated by a standard semantic anomaly. Instead, we observed a double dissociation, in that the systems activated by semantic anomaly are deactivated by referential ambiguity, and vice versa. This inverse coupling may reflect the dynamic recruitment of semantic and episodic processing to resolve semantically or referentially problematic situations. More generally, our findings suggest that neurocognitive accounts of language comprehension need to address not just how we parse a sentence and combine individual word meanings, but also how we determine who's who and what's what during language comprehension.

show abstract

Rethinking the neurological basis of language

Cited by 140 publications

References 147 publications

The boundaries of language and thought in deductive inference

The boundaries of language and thought in deductive inference

Neural substrates of narrative comprehension and memory

On sense and reference: Examining the functional neuroanatomy of referential processing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About