» Articles » PMID: 32569894

Lack of Selectivity for Syntax Relative to Word Meanings Throughout the Language Network

Overview
Journal Cognition
Publisher Elsevier
Specialty Psychology
Date 2020 Jun 23
PMID 32569894
Citations 64
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

To understand what you are reading now, your mind retrieves the meanings of words and constructions from a linguistic knowledge store (lexico-semantic processing) and identifies the relationships among them to construct a complex meaning (syntactic or combinatorial processing). Do these two sets of processes rely on distinct, specialized mechanisms or, rather, share a common pool of resources? Linguistic theorizing, empirical evidence from language acquisition and processing, and computational modeling have jointly painted a picture whereby lexico-semantic and syntactic processing are deeply inter-connected and perhaps not separable. In contrast, many current proposals of the neural architecture of language continue to endorse a view whereby certain brain regions selectively support syntactic/combinatorial processing, although the locus of such "syntactic hub", and its nature, vary across proposals. Here, we searched for selectivity for syntactic over lexico-semantic processing using a powerful individual-subjects fMRI approach across three sentence comprehension paradigms that have been used in prior work to argue for such selectivity: responses to lexico-semantic vs. morpho-syntactic violations (Experiment 1); recovery from neural suppression across pairs of sentences differing in only lexical items vs. only syntactic structure (Experiment 2); and same/different meaning judgments on such sentence pairs (Experiment 3). Across experiments, both lexico-semantic and syntactic conditions elicited robust responses throughout the left fronto-temporal language network. Critically, however, no regions were more strongly engaged by syntactic than lexico-semantic processing, although some regions showed the opposite pattern. Thus, contra many current proposals of the neural architecture of language, syntactic/combinatorial processing is not separable from lexico-semantic processing at the level of brain regions-or even voxel subsets-within the language network, in line with strong integration between these two processes that has been consistently observed in behavioral and computational language research. The results further suggest that the language network may be generally more strongly concerned with meaning than syntactic form, in line with the primary function of language-to share meanings across minds.

Citing Articles

Universality of representation in biological and artificial neural networks.

Hosseini E, Casto C, Zaslavsky N, Conwell C, Richardson M, Fedorenko E bioRxiv. 2025; .

PMID: 39764030 PMC: 11703180. DOI: 10.1101/2024.12.26.629294.


Neural encoding of semantic structures during sentence production.

Giglio L, Hagoort P, Ostarek M Cereb Cortex. 2024; 34(12).

PMID: 39716739 PMC: 11666472. DOI: 10.1093/cercor/bhae482.


Syntactic and semantic specialization in 9- to 10-year-old children during auditory sentence processing.

Wang J, Wagley N, Rice M, Gaab N, Booth J Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):26965.

PMID: 39505932 PMC: 11541780. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-76907-8.


The language network ages well: Preserved selectivity, lateralization, and within-network functional synchronization in older brains.

Billot A, Jhingan N, Varkanitsa M, Blank I, Ryskin R, Kiran S bioRxiv. 2024; .

PMID: 39484368 PMC: 11527140. DOI: 10.1101/2024.10.23.619954.


Neural populations in the language network differ in the size of their temporal receptive windows.

Regev T, Casto C, Hosseini E, Adamek M, Ritaccio A, Willie J Nat Hum Behav. 2024; 8(10):1924-1942.

PMID: 39187713 DOI: 10.1038/s41562-024-01944-2.


References
1.
Rogers T, Hocking J, Noppeney U, Mechelli A, Gorno-Tempini M, Patterson K . Anterior temporal cortex and semantic memory: reconciling findings from neuropsychology and functional imaging. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2007; 6(3):201-13. DOI: 10.3758/cabn.6.3.201. View

2.
Tranel D . Impaired naming of unique landmarks is associated with left temporal polar damage. Neuropsychology. 2006; 20(1):1-10. DOI: 10.1037/0894-4105.20.1.1. View

3.
Nelson M, El Karoui I, Giber K, Yang X, Cohen L, Koopman H . Neurophysiological dynamics of phrase-structure building during sentence processing. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017; 114(18):E3669-E3678. PMC: 5422821. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1701590114. View

4.
Bemis D, Pylkkanen L . Simple composition: a magnetoencephalography investigation into the comprehension of minimal linguistic phrases. J Neurosci. 2011; 31(8):2801-14. PMC: 6623787. DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5003-10.2011. View

5.
Pinker S, Prince A . On language and connectionism: analysis of a parallel distributed processing model of language acquisition. Cognition. 1988; 28(1-2):73-193. DOI: 10.1016/0010-0277(88)90032-7. View