Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Wednesday December 09 2015, @09:39AM   Printer-friendly
from the me-talk-english-good dept.

In the most recent issue of Nature Neuroscience , David Poeppel and his colleagues have published a paper (non-paywalled PDF) detailing research that supports Noam Chomsky's hypothesis that we possess an "internal grammar" that allows us to comprehend even nonsensical phrases. This hypothesis is rejected by most neuroscientists and psychologists, who contend that comprehension of language arises rather from the brain making statistical inferences based on words and sound cues.
From phys.org's report on the research:

"One of the foundational elements of Chomsky's work is that we have a grammar in our head, which underlies our processing of language," explains David Poeppel, the study's senior researcher and a professor in New York University's Department of Psychology. "Our neurophysiological findings support this theory: we make sense of strings of words because our brains combine words into constituents in a hierarchical manner—a process that reflects an 'internal grammar' mechanism."

...the researchers explored whether and how linguistic units are represented in the brain during speech comprehension.

To do so, Poeppel, who is also director of the Max Planck Institute for Empirical Aesthetics in Frankfurt, and his colleagues conducted a series of experiments using magnetoencephalography (MEG), which allows measurements of the tiny magnetic fields generated by brain activity, and electrocorticography (ECoG), a clinical technique used to measure brain activity in patients being monitored for neurosurgery.

...Their results showed that the subjects' brains distinctly tracked three components of the phrases they heard, reflecting a hierarchy in our neural processing of linguistic structures: words, phrases, and then sentences—at the same time.

"Because we went to great lengths to design experimental conditions that control for statistical or sound cue contributions to processing, our findings show that we must use the grammar in our head," explains Poeppel. "Our brains lock onto every word before working to comprehend phrases and sentences. The dynamics reveal that we undergo a grammar-based construction in the processing of language."

This is a controversial conclusion from the perspective of current research, the researchers note, because the notion of abstract, hierarchical, grammar-based structure building is rather unpopular.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 09 2015, @02:44PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 09 2015, @02:44PM (#273947)

    Holy crap. Look at figure 1C. The "MEG-derived cortical response spectrum for Chinese listeners and materials" has peaks at 1 HZ, 2 HZ, 3 Hz, 4Hz. Why would the brain be oscillating at whole number frequencies (based on an arbitrary length of time) like this? That looks like either an artifact or something very interesting. Is this normal in MEG studies?

  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by http on Wednesday December 09 2015, @07:19PM

    by http (1920) on Wednesday December 09 2015, @07:19PM (#274077)

    It is very easy to understand the peaks in figure 1c if you look at figures 1b and 1a: the materials were presented to listeners at a base rate of 4 Hz. FTFA:

    Are the responses at the phrasal and sentential rates indeed separate neural indices of processing at distinct linguistic levels or are they merely sub-harmonics of the syllabic rate response, generated by intrinsic cortical dynamical properties? We address this question by manipulating different levels of linguistic structure in the input [ snip ]

    We expect that the neural responses to the long verb phrase to be tagged at 1 Hz, whereas the neural responses to the monosyllabic verb and the three-syllable noun phrase will present as harmonics of 1 Hz. Consistent with our hypothesis, cortical dynamics emerged at one-fourth of the syllabic rate, whereas the response at half of the syllabic rate is no longer detectable.

    Actually, that is from the same page as the figure. I propose a new mod, DNRTFA (-1).

    --
    I browse at -1 when I have mod points. It's unsettling.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 09 2015, @09:43PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 09 2015, @09:43PM (#274128)

      Thanks.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by coolgopher on Thursday December 10 2015, @03:16AM

      by coolgopher (1157) on Thursday December 10 2015, @03:16AM (#274238)

      I propose a new mod, DNRTFA (-1).

      I like this idea.