The brain differentiates human and non-human grammars: Functional localization and structural connectivity

Friederici, Angela D.; Bahlmann, Jörg; Heim, Stefan; Schubotz, Ricarda Ines; Anwander, Alfred

doi:10.1073/pnas.0509389103

Cited by 541 publications

(580 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

527

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This account is in strong contrast to the view that Broca's region has a special role in supporting the representations or the processing of complex syntactic structure [38,39], and that the anatomical and functional features of Broca's region in humans deviate from homologue areas in other primates, subserving a uniquely human capacity for syntax [40]. In this case at least part of Broca's region is considered to be language-specific [41].…”

Section: Current Opinion In Neurobiologymentioning

confidence: 70%

Nodes and networks in the neural architecture for language: Broca's region and beyond

Hagoort

2014

Current Opinion in Neurobiology

239

209

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Current views on the neurobiological underpinnings of language are discussed that deviate in a number of ways from the classical Wernicke-Lichtheim-Geschwind model. More areas than Broca's and Wernicke's region are involved in language. Moreover, a division along the axis of language production and language comprehension does not seem to be warranted. Instead, for central aspects of language processing neural infrastructure is shared between production and comprehension. Three different accounts of the role of Broca's area in language are discussed. Arguments are presented in favor of a dynamic network view, in which the functionality of a region is co-determined by the network of regions in which it is embedded at particular moments in time. Finally, core regions of language processing need to interact with other networks (e.g. the attentional networks and the ToM network) to establish full functionality of language and communication. IntroductionOur capacity for language is deeply rooted in our biological make-up. We all share the capacity to acquire language within the first few years of life, without any formalized teaching programme. Despite its complexity we master our native language well before we can lace our shoes or perform simple calculations. This is all based on the universal availability of a language-ready brain. At the same time, few other cognitive systems in humans show as much variability as language. Language comes in very different surface forms, at most levels of organization. The more than 6000 different languages still in existence today vary widely in their sound repertoires, their grammatical structures, or the meaning that the lexical items code for. In addition to the variability in the world's languages, there is individual variation in language skills. Some people command only a limited vocabulary and simple sentence structures, whereas others are polyglots speaking multiple languages fluently, or can do simultaneous translation between languages. This variability is underpinned by differences at the genetic level and in the cultural trajectories that have shaped the linguistic phenotypes. Despite all these differences, they are variations on a theme. The theme is the neurobiological infrastructure that is largely shared among members of our species.Although human language skills presumably have their precursors in the communication and cognitive systems of other species (cf. [1 ]), the architecture of our language system sets us apart from other species and is uniquely human. It is characterized by a tripartite architecture [2 ] that enables us to map sound onto meaning (in listening) or meaning onto sound (in speaking). Next to sound and meaning, there is syntax, which enables the well-formed grouping of words into longer utterances. At a very general level, for all three information types (sound, syntax, meaning), one can make a distinction between two crucial components. The one relates to the common assumption that the basic building blocks of linguistic knowledge get encoded...

show abstract

Section: Current Opinion In Neurobiologymentioning

confidence: 70%

Nodes and networks in the neural architecture for language: Broca's region and beyond

Hagoort

2014

Current Opinion in Neurobiology

239

209

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is thus likely that this activation reflects the syntactic reanalysis required by anomalous sentences or scrambled sentences that were more confusing than the subject-initial sentences used under the AS and PS conditions. A recent intraoperative electrocorticography study in humans showed bidirectional connectivity between the left IFG and the left pSTG/MTG [Matsumoto et al, 2004], and additional evidence for this connectivity has been reported in studies using MRI to investigate structural connectivity [Catani et al, 2005;Friederici et al, 2006]. Therefore, it is possible that this network subserves syntactic integration, thereby combining multiple linguistic information.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 85%

Neural correlates of noncanonical syntactic processing revealed by a picture‐sentence matching task

Kinno¹,

Kawamura²,

Shioda³

et al. 2007

Human Brain Mapping

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It remains controversial whether the left inferior frontal gyrus subserves syntactic processing or short-term memory demands. Here we devised a novel picture-sentence matching task involving Japanese sentences with different structures to clearly contrast syntactic reanalysis processes. Using event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), activations under three main conditions were directly compared: a canonical/subject-initial active sentence (AS), a noncanonical/subject-initial passive sentence (PS), and a noncanonical/object-initial scrambled sentence (SS). We found that activation in the dorsal region of the left inferior frontal gyrus (dF3t) was enhanced more by the noncanonical processing under the PS and SS conditions than by the canonical processing under the AS condition, and this enhancement was independent of domain-general factors, such as general memory demands and task difficulty. Moreover, the left posterior superior/middle temporal gyrus (pSTG/ MTG) showed more enhanced responses to object-initial sentences under the SS condition than to subject-initial sentences under the AS and PS conditions, which were not significantly affected by task difficulty. Furthermore, activation in the left lateral premotor cortex (LPMC) increased under the AS, PS, and SS conditions, in that order. It is possible that task difficulty affects the left LPMC, but the three distinct activations patterns suggest that these frontal and temporal regions work in concert to process syntactic structures, with their respective contributions dynamically regulated by linguistic requirements. Hum Brain Mapp 29: [1015][1016][1017][1018][1019][1020][1021][1022][1023][1024][1025][1026][1027] 2008. V V C 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

show abstract

“…On the other hand, the (equal) level of activation of linguistic resources prompted by simple and complex deductions is no greater than that prompted by reading for grammatical evaluation (Monti et al, 2009) or later recall (Rodriguez-Moreno and Hirsch, 2009). In addition, when directly compared, the neural mechanisms underlying logic inferences dissociate from the neural mechanisms underlying linguistic operations, which have been well documented in the past (Ben-Shachar et al, 2003, 2004Bornkessel et al, 2005;Friederici et al, 2006). The first set of results hinges on the finding that language regions are not engaged by deductive reasoning, nor are they modulated by deductive complexity.…”

Section: Language and Logicmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…If logical inference is based on mechanisms of natural language that go beyond mere reading for meaning then the comparison of each type of inference to its matched baseline should uncover common activations in regions known to underlie linguistic processing. (For the latter regions, see Ben-Shachar et al, 2003, 2004Bookheimer, 2002;Bornkessel et al, 2005;Friederici et al, 2006;Grodzinsky and Friederici, 2006;Kuperberg et al, 2006;Virtue et al, 2006. ) Please insert Table 2 about here.…”

Section: Please Insertmentioning

confidence: 99%

Logic, language and the brain

Monti

Osherson

2012

Brain Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What is the role of language in human cognition? Within the domain of deductive reasoning, the issue has been the focus of numerous investigations without the emergence of a consensus view. Here we consider some of the reasons why neuroimaging studies of deductive reasoning have generated mixed results. We then review recent evidence suggesting that the role of language in deductive reasoning is confined to an initial stage in which verbally presented information is encoded as non-verbal representations. These representations are then manipulated by mental operations that are not based on the neural mechanisms of natural language.

show abstract

The brain differentiates human and non-human grammars: Functional localization and structural connectivity

Cited by 541 publications

References 49 publications

Nodes and networks in the neural architecture for language: Broca's region and beyond

Nodes and networks in the neural architecture for language: Broca's region and beyond

Neural correlates of noncanonical syntactic processing revealed by a picture‐sentence matching task

Logic, language and the brain

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About