全部 标题 作者
关键词 摘要

OALib Journal期刊
ISSN: 2333-9721
费用:99美元

查看量下载量

相关文章

更多...
PLOS ONE  2012 

Left Inferior Frontal Activations Depending on the Canonicity Determined by the Argument Structures of Ditransitive Sentences: An MEG Study

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0037192

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib

Abstract:

To elucidate the relationships between syntactic and semantic processes, one interesting question is how syntactic structures are constructed by the argument structure of a verb, where each argument corresponds to a semantic role of each noun phrase (NP). Here we examined the effects of possessivity [sentences with or without a possessor] and canonicity [canonical or noncanonical word orders] using Japanese ditransitive sentences. During a syntactic decision task, the syntactic structure of each sentence would be constructed in an incremental manner based on the predicted argument structure of the ditransitive verb in a verb-final construction. Using magnetoencephalography, we found a significant canonicity effect on the current density in the left inferior frontal gyrus (IFG) at 530–550 ms after the verb onset. This effect was selective to canonical sentences, and significant even when the precedent NP was physically identical. We suggest that the predictive effects associated with syntactic processing became larger for canonical sentences, where the NPs and verb were merged with a minimum structural distance, leading to the left IFG activations. For monotransitive and intransitive verbs, in which structural computation of the sentences was simpler than that of ditransitive sentences, we observed a significant effect selective to noncanonical sentences in the temporoparietal regions during 480–670 ms. This effect probably reflects difficulty in semantic processing of noncanonical sentences. These results demonstrate that the left IFG plays a predictive role in syntactic processing, which depends on the canonicity determined by argument structures, whereas other temporoparietal regions would subserve more semantic aspects of sentence processing.

References

[1]  Chomsky N (1965) Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. 251 p.
[2]  Ben-Shachar M, Palti D, Grodzinsky Y (2004) Neural correlates of syntactic movement: Converging evidence from two fMRI experiments. Neuroimage 21: 1320–1336.
[3]  Bornkessel I, Zysset S, Friederici AD, von Cramon DY, Schlesewsky M (2005) Who did what to whom? The neural basis of argument hierarchies during language comprehension. Neuroimage 26: 221–233.
[4]  Fiebach CJ, Schlesewsky M, Lohmann G, von Cramon DY, Friederici AD (2005) Revisiting the role of Broca’s area in sentence processing: Syntactic integration versus syntactic working memory. Hum Brain Ma 24: 79–91.
[5]  Bahlmann J, Rodriguez-Fornells A, Rotte M, Münte TF (2007) An fMRI study of canonical and noncanonical word order in German. Hum Brain Ma 28: 940–949.
[6]  Kinno R, Kawamura M, Shioda S, Sakai KL (2008) Neural correlates of noncanonical syntactic processing revealed by a picture-sentence matching task. Hum Brain Ma 29: 1015–1027.
[7]  Kinno R, Muragaki Y, Hori T, Maruyama T, Kawamura M, et al. (2009) Agrammatic comprehension caused by a glioma in the left frontal cortex. Brain Lang 110: 71–80.
[8]  Wilson SM, Dronkers NF, Ogar JM, Jang J, Growdon ME, et al. (2010) Neural correlates of syntactic processing in the nonfluent variant of primary progressive aphasia. J Neurosci 30: 16845–16854.
[9]  Grewe T, Bornkessel I, Zysset S, Wiese R, von Cramon DY, et al. (2006) Linguistic prominence and Broca’s area: The influence of animacy as a linearization principle. Neuroimage 32: 1395–1402.
[10]  Bruening B (2010) Ditransitive asymmetries and a theory of idiom formation. Ling Inq 41: 519–562.
[11]  Green GM (1974) Semantics and Syntactic Regularity. Bloomington,. Indiana University Press. 237 p.
[12]  Pinker S (1991) Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. 411 p.
[13]  Larson RK (1988) On the double object construction. Ling Inq 19: 335–391.
[14]  Comrie B (1989) Language Universals and Linguistic Typology: Syntax and Morphology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 264 p.
[15]  Marantz A (1993) Implications of Asymmetries in Double Object Constructions. In: Mchombo SA, editor. Theoretical Aspects of Bantu Grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. pp. 113–150.
[16]  Sadakane K, Koizumi M (1995) On the nature of the “dative” particle ni in Japanese. Linguistics 33: 5–33.
[17]  Jaeggli O (1981) Topics in Romance Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. 188 p.
[18]  Rappaport Hovav M, Levin B (2008) The English dative alternation: The case for verb sensitivity. Journal of Linguistics 44: 129–167.
[19]  Chomsky N (1995) The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. 420 p.
[20]  Radford A (1997) Syntactic Theory and the Structure of English: A Minimalist Approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 558 p.
[21]  Fukui N (1993) Parameter and optionality. Ling Inq 24: 399–420.
[22]  Hoji H (1986) Weak Crossover and Japanese Phrase Structure. In: Imai T, Saito M, editors. Issues in Japanese Linguistics. Dordrecht: Foris. pp. 163–201.
[23]  Kishimoto H (2008) Ditransitive idioms and argument structure. J East Asian Ling 17: 141–179.
[24]  Saito M (1992) Long distance scrambling in Japanese. J East Asian Ling 1: 69–118.
[25]  Takano Y (1998) Object shift and scrambling. Nat Lang Ling Theory 16: 817–889.
[26]  Yatsushiro K (2003) VP internal scrambling. J East Asian Ling 12: 141–170.
[27]  Miyagawa S, Tsujioka T (2004) Argument structure and ditransitive verbs in Japanese. J East Asian Ling 13: 1–38.
[28]  Nakamoto K, Lee J, Kuroda K (2006) Preferred word orders correlate with “sentential” meanings that cannot be reduced to verb meanings: A new perspective on “construction effects” in Japanese. Cogn Studies 13: 334–352.
[29]  Shetreet E, Palti D, Friedmann N, Hadar U (2007) Cortical representation of verb processing in sentence comprehension: Number of complements, subcategorization, and thematic frames. Cereb Cortex 17: 1958–1969.
[30]  Thompson CK, Bonakdarpour B, Fix SC, Blumenfeld HK, Parrish TB, et al. (2007) Neural correlates of verb argument structure processing. J Cogn Neurosci 19: 1753–1768.
[31]  Sahin NT, Pinker S, Cash SS, Schomer D, Halgren E (2009) Sequential processing of lexical, grammatical, and phonological information within Broca’s area. Science 326: 445–449.
[32]  Wildgruber D, Hertrich I, Riecker A, Erb M, Anders S, et al. (2004) Distinct frontal regions subserve evaluation of linguistic and emotional aspects of speech intonation. Cereb Cortex 14: 1384–1389.
[33]  Iijima K, Fukui N, Sakai KL (2009) The cortical dynamics in building syntactic structures of sentences: An MEG study in a minimal-pair paradigm. Neuroimage 44: 1387–1396.
[34]  Suzuki K, Sakai KL (2003) An event-related fMRI study of explicit syntactic processing of normal/anomalous sentences in contrast to implicit syntactic processing. Cereb Cortex 13: 517–526.
[35]  Frazier L, d’Arcais GBF (1989) Filler driven parsing: A study of gap filling in Dutch. J Mem Lang 28: 331–344.
[36]  Koizumi M, Tamaoka K (2010) Psycholinguistic evidence for the VP-internal subject position in Japanese. Ling Inq 41: 663–680.
[37]  Stowe LA (1986) Parsing WH-constructions: Evidence for on-line gap location. Lang Cogn Processes 1: 227–245.
[38]  Tamaoka K, Sakai H, Kawahara J, Miyaoka Y, Lim H, et al. (2005) Priority information used for the processing of Japanese sentences: Thematic roles, case particles or grammatical functions? J Psycholinguist Res 34: 281–332.
[39]  Grodzinsky Y, Santi A (2008) The battle for Broca’s region. Trends Cogn Sci 12: 474–480.
[40]  Santi A, Grodzinsky Y (2012) Broca’s area and sentence comprehension: A relationship parasitic on dependency, displacement or predictability? Neuropsychologia 50: 821–832.
[41]  Chomsky N (2011) Language and other cognitive systems. What is special about language? Lang Learn Dev 7: 263–278.
[42]  Oldfield RC (1971) The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia 9: 97–113.
[43]  Bresnan J, Ford M (2010) Predicting syntax: Processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English. Language 86: 168–213.
[44]  Talairach J, Tournoux P (1988) Co-Planar Stereotaxic Atlas of the Human Brain. 3-Dimensional Proportional System: An Approach to Cerebral Imaging. Stuttgart: Thieme.
[45]  Kriegeskorte N, Goebel R (2001) An efficient algorithm for topologically correct segmentation of the cortical sheet in anatomical MR volumes. Neuroimage 14: 329–346.
[46]  Dale AM, Sereno MI (1993) Improved localization of cortical activity by combining EEG and MEG with MRI cortical surface reconstruction: A linear approach. J Cogn Neurosci 5: 162–176.
[47]  H?m?l?inen M, Hari R, Ilmoniemi RJ, Knuutila J, Lounasmaa OV (1993) Magnetoencephalography - Theory, instrumentation, and applications to noninvasive studies of the working human brain. Rev Mod Phys 65: 413–497.
[48]  Friston KJ, Henson RN (2006) Commentary on: Divide and conquer; A defence of functional localisers. Neuroimage 30: 1097–1099.
[49]  Maris E, Oostenveld R (2007) Nonparametric statistical testing of EEG- and MEG-data. J Neurosci Meth 164: 177–190.
[50]  Karniski W, Blair RC, Snider AD (1994) An exact statistical method for comparing topographic maps, with any number of subjects and electrodes. Brain Topogr 6: 203–210.
[51]  Pantazis D, Nichols TE, Baillet S, Leahy RM (2005) A comparison of random field theory and permutation methods for the statistical analysis of MEG data. Neuroimage 25: 383–394.
[52]  Nichols TE, Holmes AP (2002) Nonparametric permutation tests for functional neuroimaging: A primer with examples. Hum Brain Ma 15: 1–25.
[53]  Sakai KL, Miura K, Narafu N, Muraishi M (2004) Correlated functional changes of the prefrontal cortex in twins induced by classroom education of second language. Cereb Cortex 14: 1233–1239.
[54]  Cleeremans A, McClelland JL (1991) Learning the structure of event sequences. J Exp Psychol 120: 235–253.
[55]  Elman JL (1991) Distributed representations, simple recurrent networks, and grammatical structure. Mach Learning 7: 195–225.
[56]  Sakai KL (2005) Language acquisition and brain development. Science 310: 815–819.
[57]  Corina DP, Gibson EK, Martin R, Poliakov A, Brinkley J, et al. (2005) Dissociation of action and object naming: Evidence from cortical stimulation mapping. Hum Brain Ma 24: 1–10.
[58]  Ralph MAL, Pobric G, Jefferies E (2009) Conceptual knowledge is underpinned by the temporal pole bilaterally: Convergent evidence from rTMS. Cereb Cortex 19: 832–838.
[59]  Boland JE, Tanenhaus MK, Garnsey SM, Carlson GN (1995) Verb argument structure in parsing and interpretation: Evidence from wh-questions. J Mem Lang 34: 774–806.
[60]  Kamide Y, Altmann GTM, Haywood SL (2003) The time-course of prediction in incremental sentence processing: Evidence from anticipatory eye movements. J Mem Lang 49: 133–156.
[61]  Bar M, Kassam KS, Ghuman AS, Boshyan J, Schmid AM, et al. (2006) Top-down facilitation of visual recognition. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103: 449–454.
[62]  Summerfield C, Egner T, Greene M, Koechlin E, Mangels J, et al. (2006) Predictive codes for forthcoming perception in the frontal cortex. Science 314: 1311–1314.

Full-Text

Contact Us

service@oalib.com

QQ:3279437679

WhatsApp +8615387084133