» Articles » PMID: 28416691

Neurophysiological Dynamics of Phrase-structure Building During Sentence Processing

Overview
Specialty Science
Date 2017 Apr 19
PMID 28416691
Citations 94
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Although sentences unfold sequentially, one word at a time, most linguistic theories propose that their underlying syntactic structure involves a tree of nested phrases rather than a linear sequence of words. Whether and how the brain builds such structures, however, remains largely unknown. Here, we used human intracranial recordings and visual word-by-word presentation of sentences and word lists to investigate how left-hemispheric brain activity varies during the formation of phrase structures. In a broad set of language-related areas, comprising multiple superior temporal and inferior frontal sites, high-gamma power increased with each successive word in a sentence but decreased suddenly whenever words could be merged into a phrase. Regression analyses showed that each additional word or multiword phrase contributed a similar amount of additional brain activity, providing evidence for a merge operation that applies equally to linguistic objects of arbitrary complexity. More superficial models of language, based solely on sequential transition probability over lexical and syntactic categories, only captured activity in the posterior middle temporal gyrus. Formal model comparison indicated that the model of multiword phrase construction provided a better fit than probability-based models at most sites in superior temporal and inferior frontal cortices. Activity in those regions was consistent with a neural implementation of a bottom-up or left-corner parser of the incoming language stream. Our results provide initial intracranial evidence for the neurophysiological reality of the merge operation postulated by linguists and suggest that the brain compresses syntactically well-formed sequences of words into a hierarchy of nested phrases.

Citing Articles

Distinct neural representations of different linguistic components following sign language learning.

Coldham Y, Haluts N, Elbaz E, Ben-David T, Racabi N, Gal S Commun Biol. 2025; 8(1):353.

PMID: 40033011 PMC: 11876632. DOI: 10.1038/s42003-025-07793-7.


Decoding semantics from natural speech using human intracranial EEG.

Pescatore C, Zhang H, Hadjinicolaou A, Paulk A, Rolston J, Richardson R bioRxiv. 2025; .

PMID: 39990331 PMC: 11844374. DOI: 10.1101/2025.02.10.637051.


Language-specific neural dynamics extend syntax into the time domain.

Coopmans C, de Hoop H, Tezcan F, Hagoort P, Martin A PLoS Biol. 2025; 23(1):e3002968.

PMID: 39836653 PMC: 11750093. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3002968.


Lexical Surprisal Shapes the Time Course of Syntactic Structure Building.

Slaats S, Meyer A, Martin A Neurobiol Lang (Camb). 2024; 5(4):942-980.

PMID: 39534445 PMC: 11556436. DOI: 10.1162/nol_a_00155.


Syntax and the brain: language evolution as the missing link(ing theory)?.

Benitez-Burraco A, Progovac L Front Psychol. 2024; 15:1445192.

PMID: 39526128 PMC: 11543476. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1445192.


References
1.
Brennan J, Stabler E, Van Wagenen S, Luh W, Hale J . Abstract linguistic structure correlates with temporal activity during naturalistic comprehension. Brain Lang. 2016; 157-158:81-94. PMC: 4893969. DOI: 10.1016/j.bandl.2016.04.008. View

2.
Vagharchakian L, Dehaene-Lambertz G, Pallier C, Dehaene S . A temporal bottleneck in the language comprehension network. J Neurosci. 2012; 32(26):9089-102. PMC: 6622343. DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5685-11.2012. View

3.
Fitch W . Toward a computational framework for cognitive biology: unifying approaches from cognitive neuroscience and comparative cognition. Phys Life Rev. 2014; 11(3):329-64. DOI: 10.1016/j.plrev.2014.04.005. View

4.
Frank S, Bod R, Christiansen M . How hierarchical is language use?. Proc Biol Sci. 2012; 279(1747):4522-31. PMC: 3479729. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2012.1741. View

5.
Musso M, Moro A, Glauche V, Rijntjes M, Reichenbach J, Buchel C . Broca's area and the language instinct. Nat Neurosci. 2003; 6(7):774-81. DOI: 10.1038/nn1077. View