How hierarchical is language use?

Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Volumn 279, Issue 1747, 2012, Pages 4522-4531

  Frank, Stefan L ^a   Bod, Rens ^b   Christiansen, Morten H ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^c Department of Obstetrics Gynecology   (United States)

Author keywords

Cognitive neuroscience; Computational linguistics; Language evolution; Language structure; Psycholinguistics

Indexed keywords

BEHAVIORAL ECOLOGY; COMPUTER SIMULATION; LANGUAGE; NEUROLOGY; PREDICTION;

EID: 84867515500     PISSN: 09628452     EISSN: 14712954     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2012.1741     Document Type: Review

References (102)

1. Frazier, L. & Rayner, K. 1982 Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: eye-movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cogn. Psychol. 14, 178-210. (doi:10.1016/0010-0285 (82)90008-1)
2. Jurafsky, D. 1996 A probabilistic model of lexical and syntactic access and disambiguation. Cogn. Sci. 20, 137-194. (doi:10.1207/s15516709cog2002_1)
3. Vosse, T. & Kempen, G. 2000 Syntactic structure assembly in human parsing: a computational model based on competitive inhibition and a lexicalist grammar. Cognition 75, 105-143. (doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00063-9)
4. Kempen, G. & Hoenkamp, E. 1987 An incremental procedural grammar for sentence formulation. Cogn. Sci. 11, 201-258. (doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1102_5)
5. Hartsuiker, R. J., Antón-Méndez, I. & Van Zee, M. 2001 Object attraction in subject-verb agreement construction. J. Mem. Lang. 45, 546-572. (doi:10.1006/jmla.2000.2787)
6. Borensztajn, G., Zuidema, W. & Bod, R. 2009 Children's grammars grow more abstract with age: evidence from an automatic procedure for identifying the productive units of language. Top. Cogn. Sci. 1, 175-188. (doi:10.1111/j. 1756-8765.2008.01009.x)
7. Pinker, S. 1984 Language learnability and language development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
8. Law, V. 2003 The history of linguistics in Europe. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
9. Seuren, P. 1998 Western linguistics: an historical introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
10. Bloomfield, L. 1933 Language. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
11. Chomsky, N. 1957 Syntactic structures. The Hague, The Netherlands: Mouton.
12. Bresnan, J. 1982 The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
13. Sag, I. & Wasow, T. 1999 Syntactic theory: a formal introduction. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
14. Bybee, J. 2002 Sequentiality as the basis of constituent structure. In The evolution of language out of prelanguage (eds T. Givón & B. F. Malle), pp. 109-134. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
15. Langacker, R. W. 2010 Day after day after day. In Meaning, form, and body (eds F. Parrill, V. Tobin & M. Turner), pp. 149-164. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
16. Pinker, S. 2003 Language as an adaptation to the cognitive niche. In Language evolution: states of the art (eds M. H. Christiansen & S. Kirby), pp. 16-37. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
17. Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N. & Fitch, W. T. 2002 The faculty of language: what is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science 298, 1569-1579. (doi:10.1126/science.298.5598.1569)
18. Chomsky, N. 2010 Some simple evo-devo theses: how true might they be for language? In The evolution of human language (eds R. K. Larson, V. Déprez & H. Yamakido), pp. 45-62. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
19. Kirby, S., Dowman, M. & Griffiths, T. L. 2007 Innateness and culture in the evolution of language. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 5241-5245. (doi:10.1073/pnas.0608222104)
20. Chater, N., Reali, F. & Christiansen, M. H. 2009 Restrictions on biological adaptation in language evolution. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 1015-1020. (doi:10.1073/pnas.0807191106)
21. Christiansen, M. H. & Chater, N. 2008 Language as shaped by the brain. Behav. Brain Sci. 31, 489-558. (doi:10.1017/S0140525_08004998)
22. Evans, N. & Levinson, S. C. 2009 The myth of language universals: language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behav. Brain Sci. 32, 429-492. (doi:10.1017/S0140525_0999094x)
23. Dunn, M., Greenhill, S. J., Levinson, S. C. & Gray, R. D. 2011 Evolved structure of language shows lineage-specific trends in word-order universals. Nature 473, 79-82. (doi:10.1038/Nature09923)
24. Dehaene, S. & Cohen, L. 2007 Cultural recycling of cortical maps. Neuron 56, 384-398. (doi:10.1016/j. neuron.2007.10.004)
25. Fisher, S. E. & Scharff, C. 2009 FOXP2 as a molecular window into speech and language. Trends Genet. 25, 166-177. (doi:10.1016/j.tig.2009.03.002)
26. Chater, N. & Christiansen, M. H. 2010 Language acquisition meets language evolution. Cogn. Sci. 34, 1131-1157. (doi:10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01049.x)
27. Conway, C.M. & Pisoni, D. B. 2008 Neurocognitive basis of implicit learning of sequential structure and its relation to language processing. Learn. Skill Acquisit. Read. Dyslexia 1145, 113-131. (doi:10.1196/annals.1416.009)
28. Christiansen, M. H., Conway, C. M. & Onnis, L. 2012 Similar neural correlates for language and sequential learning: evidence from event-related brain potentials. Lang. Cogn. Process. 27, 231-256. (doi:10.1080/01690965.2011.606666)
29. Grodzinsky, Y. 2000 The neurology of syntax: language use without Broca's area. Behav. Brain Sci. 23, 1-21. (doi:10.1017/S0140525X00002399)
30. Bahlmann, J., Schubotz, R. I. & Friederici, A. D. 2008 Hierarchical artificial grammar processing engages Broca's area. Neuroimage 42, 525-534. (doi:10.1016/j. neuroimage.2008.04.249)
31. Petersson, K. M., Folia, V. & Hagoort, P. 2012 What artificial grammar learning reveals about the neurobiology of syntax. Brain Lang. 120, 83-95. (doi:10.1016/j. bandl.2010.08.003)
32. Flö el, A., de Vries, M. H., Scholz, J., Breitenstein, C. & Johansen-Berg, H. 2009 White matter integrity in the vicinity of Broca's area predicts grammar learning success. Neuroimage 47, 1974-1981. (doi:10.1016/j. neuroimage.2009.05.046)
33. Christiansen, M. H., Kelly, M. L., Shillcock, R. C. & Greenfield, K. 2010 Impaired artificial grammar learning in agrammatism. Cognition 116, 382-393. (doi:10. 1016/j.cognition.2010.05.015)
34. Patel, A. D., Iversen, J. R., Wassenaar, M. & Hagoort, P. 2008 Musical syntactic processing in agrammatic Broca's aphasia. Aphasiology 22, 776-789. (doi:10. 1080/02687030701803804)
35. De Vries, M. H., Barth, A. C. R., Maiworm, S., Knecht, S., Zwitserlood, P. & Flö el, A. 2010 Electrical stimulation of Broca's area enhances implicit learning of an artificial grammar. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 22, 2427-2436. (doi:10.1162/jocn.2009.21385)
36. Uddén, J., Folia, V., Forkstam, C., Ingvar, M., Fernandez, G., Overeem, S., van Elswijk, G., Hagoort, P. &Petersson, K. M. 2008 The inferior frontal cortex in artificial syntax processing: an rTMS study. Brain Res. 1224, 69-78. (doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2008.05.070)
37. Gillespie, M. & Pearlmutter, N. J. 2011 Hierarchy and scope of planning in subject-verb agreement production. Cognition 118, 377-397. (doi:10.1016/j. cognition.2010.10.008)
38. Gillespie, M. & Pearlmutter, N. J. 2012 Against structural constraints in subject-verb agreement production. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. (doi:10.1037/a0029005)
39. Misyak, J. B. & Christiansen, M. H. 2010 When 'more' in statistical learning means 'less' in language: individual differences in predictive processing of adjacent dependencies. In Proc. 32nd Annu. Conf. Cognitive Science Society (eds S. Ohlsson & R. Catrambone), pp. 2686-2691. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
40. Vasishth, S. & Drenhaus, H. 2011 Locality in German. Dialogue Discourse 1, 59-82. (doi:10.5087/dad.2011.104)
41. Bartek, B., Lewis, R. L., Vasishth, S. & Smith, M. R. 2011 In search of on-line locality effects in sentence comprehension. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 37, 1178-1198. (doi:10.1037/A0024194)
42. Tabor, W., Galantucci, B. & Richardson, D. 2004 Effects of merely local syntactic coherence on sentence processing. J. Mem. Lang. 50, 355-370. (doi:10.1016/j.jml.2004.01.001)
43. Bach, E., Brown, C. & Marslen-Wilson, W. 1986 Crossed and nested dependencies in German and Dutch. A psycholinguistic study. Lang. Cogn. Process. 1, 249-262. (doi:10.1080/01690968608404677)
44. Uddén, J., Ingvar, M., Hagoort, P. & Petersson, K. M. 2012 Implicit acquisition of grammars with crossed and nested non-adjacent dependencies: investigating the push-down stack model. Cogn. Sci. (doi:10.1111/j. 1551-6709.2012.01235.x)
45. De Vries, M. H., Geukes, S., Zwitserlood, P., Petersson, K. M. & Christiansen, M. H. 2012 Processing multiple non-adjacent dependencies: evidence from sequence learning. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 367, 2065-2076. (doi:10.1098/rstb.2011.041)
46. Christiansen, M. H. & Chater, N. 1999 Toward a connectionist model of recursion in human linguistic performance. Cogn. Sci. 23, 157-205. (doi:10.1207/s15516709cog2302_2)
47. Christiansen, M. H. & MacDonald, M. C. 2009 A usage-based approach to recursion in sentence processing. Lang. Learn. 59, 126-161. (doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00538.x)
48. Gibson, E. & Thomas, J. 1999 Memory limitations and structural forgetting: the perception of complex ungrammatical sentences as grammatical. Lang. Cogn. Process. 14, 225-248. (doi:10.1080/016909699 386293)
49. Vasishth, S., Suckow, K., Lewis, R. L. & Kern, S. 2010 Short-term forgetting in sentence comprehension: crosslinguistic evidence from verb-final structures. Lang. Cogn. Process. 25, 533-567. (doi:10.1080/01690 960903310587)
50. Engelmann, F. & Vasishth, S. 2009 Processing grammatical and ungrammatical center embeddings in English and German: a computational model. In Proc. 9th Int. Conf. Cognitive Modeling (eds A. Howes, D. Peebles & R. Cooper), pp. 240-245. Manchester, UK.
51. Van Berkum, J. J. A., Brown, C. M., Zwitserlood, P., Kooijman, V. & Hagoort, P. 2005 Anticipating upcoming words in discourse: evidence from ERPs and reading times. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 31, 443-467. (doi:10.1037/0278-7393.31.3.443)
52. Frank, S. L. & Bod, R. 2011 Insensitivity of the human sentence-processing system to hierarchical structure. Psychol. Sci. 22, 829-834. (doi:10.1177/09567976 11409589)
53. FernandezMonsalve, I., Frank, S. L. &Vigliocco, G. 2012 Lexical surprisal as a general predictor of reading time. In Proc. 13th Conf. European chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ed. W. Daelemans), pp. 398-408. Avignon, France: Association for Computational Linguistics.
54. Frank, S. L. & Thompson, R. L. 2012 Early effects of word surprisal on pupil size during reading. In Proc. 34th Annu. Conf. Cognitive Science Society (eds N. Miyake, D. Peebles & R. P. Cooper), pp. 1554-1559. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
55. Conway, C. M., Bauernschmidt, A., Huang, S. S. & Pisoni, D. B. 2010 Implicit statistical learning in language processing: word predictability is the key. Cognition 114, 356-371. (doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2009.10.009)
56. Misyak, J. B., Christiansen, M. H. & Tomblin, J. B. 2010 Sequential expectations: the role of prediction-based learning in language. Top. Cogn. Sci. 2, 138-153. (doi:10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01072.x)
57. Crain, S. 1991 Language acquisition in the absence of experience. Behav. Brain Sci. 14, 597-612. (doi:10. 1017/S0140525X00071491)
58. Chomsky, N. 1980 The linguistic approach. In Language and learning: the debate between Jean Piaget and Noam Chomsky (ed. M. Piatelli-Palmarini), pp. 109-130. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
59. Crain, S. & Pietroski, P. 2001 Nature, nurture and universal grammar. Linguist. Phil. 24, 139-186. (doi:10. 1023/A:1005694100138)
60. Crain, S. & Nakayama, M. 1987 Structure dependence in grammar formation. Language 63, 522-543. (doi:10. 2307/415004)
61. Reali, F. & Christiansen, M. H. 2005 Uncovering the richness of the stimulus: structural dependence and indirect statistical evidence. Cogn. Sci. 29, 1007-1028. (doi:10.1207/s15516709cog0000_28)
62. Kam, X., Stoyneshka, L., Tornyova, L., Fodor, J. & Sakas, W. 2008 Bigrams and the richness of the stimulus. Cogn. Sci. 32, 771-787. (doi:10.1080/036402108 02067053)
63. Clark, A. & Eyraud, R. 2006 Learning auxiliary fronting with grammatical inference. In Proc. 10th Conf. Computational Natural Language Learning, pp. 125-132. NewYork, NY:Association forComputational Linguistics.
64. Fitz, H. 2010 Statistical learning of complex questions. In Proc. 32nd Annu. Conf. Cognitive Science Society (eds S. Ohlsson & R. Catrambone), pp. 2692-2698. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
65. Adger, D. 2003 Core syntax: a minimalist approach. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
66. Bod, R. & Smets, M. 2012 Empiricist solutions to nativist puzzles by means of unsupervised TSG. In Proc. Workshop on Computational Models of Language Acquisition and Loss, pp. 10-18. Avignon, France: Association for Computational Linguistics.
67. Wexler, K. 1998 Very early parameter setting and the unique checking constraint: a new explanation of the optional infinitive stage. Lingua 106, 23-79. (doi:10. 1016/S0024-3841(98)00029-1)
68. Freudenthal, D., Pine, J. M. & Gobet, F. 2009 Simulating the referential properties of Dutch, German, and English root infinitives in MOSAIC. Lang. Learn. Develop. 5, 1-29. (doi:10.1080/15475440 802502437)
69. McCauley, S. & Christiansen, M. H. 2011 Learning simple statistics for language comprehension and production: the CAPPUCCINO model. In Proc. 33rd Annu. Conf. Cognitive Science Society (eds L. Carlson, C. Hö lscher & T. Shipley), pp. 1619-1624. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
70. Saffran, J. R. 2002 Constraints on statistical language learning. J. Mem. Lang. 47, 172-196. (doi:10.1006/jmla.2001.2839)
71. Goldberg, A. E. 2006 Constructions at work: the nature of generalization in language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
72. Arnon, I. & Snider, N. 2010 More than words: frequency effects for multi-word phrases. J. Mem. Lang. 62, 67-82. (doi:10.1016/j.jml.2009.09.005)
73. Bannard, C. & Matthews, D. 2008 Stored word sequences in language learning: the effect of familiarity on children's repetition of four-word combinations. Psychol. Sci. 19, 241-248. (doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02075.x)
74. Siyanova-Chantuira, A., Conklin, K. & Van Heuven, W. J. B. 2011 Seeing a phrase 'time and again' matters: the role of phrasal frequency in the processing of multiword sequences. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 37, 776-784. (doi:10.1037/a0022531)
75. Tremblay, A., Derwing, B., Libben, G. & Westbury, C. 2011 Processing advantages of lexical bundles: evidence from self-paced reading and sentence recall tasks. Lang. Learn. 61, 569-613. (doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00622.x)
76. Fodor, J. A. 1975 The language of thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
77. Johnson-Laird, P. N. 1983 Mental models. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
78. Johnson, M. 1987 The body in the mind: the bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
79. Barsalou, L.W. 1999 Perceptual symbol systems. Behav. Brain Sci. 22, 577-660.
80. Stern, H. P. E. & Mahmoud, S. A. 2004 Communication systems: analysis and design. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
81. Takac, M., Benuskova, L. & Knott, A. In press. Mapping sensorimotor sequences to word sequences: a connectionist model of language acquisition and sentence generation. Cognition (doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2012.06.006)
82. Ding, L., Dennis, S. & Mehay, D. N. 2009 A single layer network model of sentential recursive patterns. In Proc. 31st Annu. Conf. Cognitive Science Society (eds N. A. Taatgen & H. Van Rijn), pp. 461-466. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
83. Pulvermüller, F. 2010 Brain embodiment of syntax and grammar: discrete combinatorial mechanisms spelt out in neuronal circuits. Brain Lang. 112, 167-179. (doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2009.08.002)
84. Townsend, D. J. & Bever, T. G. 2001 Sentence comprehension: the integration of habits and rules. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
85. Ferreira, F. & Patson, N. 2007 The good enough approach to language comprehension. Lang. Ling. Compass 1, 71-83. (doi:10.1111/j.1749-818x.2007.00007.x)
86. Sanford, A. J. & Sturt, P. 2002 Depth of processing in language comprehension: not noticing the evidence. Trends Cogn. Sci. 6, 382-386. (doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(02)01958-7)
87. Kamide, Y., Altmann, G. T. M. & Haywood, S. L. 2003 The time-course of prediction in incremental sentence processing: evidence from anticipatory eye movements. J. Mem. Lang. 49, 133-156. (doi:10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00023-8)
88. Otten, M. & Van Berkum, J. J. A. 2008 Discourse-based word anticipation during language processing: prediction or priming? Discourse Processes 45, 464-496. (doi:10.1080/01638530802356463)
89. Frank, S. L., Haselager, W. F. G. & van Rooij, I. 2009 Connectionist semantic systematicity. Cognition 110, 358-379. (doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2008.11.013)
90. Chomsky, N. 1981 Lectures on Government and Binding. The Pisa Lectures. Dordecht, The Netherlands: Foris.
91. Culicover, P. W. Submitted. The role of linear order in the computation of referential dependencies.
92. Culicover, P. W. & Jackendoff, R. 2005 Simpler syntax. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
93. Levinson, S. C. 1987 Pragmatics and the grammar of anaphora: a partial pragmatic reduction of binding and control phenomena. J. Linguist. 23, 379-434. (doi:10. 1017/S0022226700011324)
94. Wheeler, B. et al. 2011 Communication. In Animal thinking: contemporary issues in comparative cognition (eds R. Menzel & J. Fischer), pp. 187-205. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
95. Tomasello, M. & Herrmann, E. 2010 Ape and human cognition: what's the difference? Curr. Direct. Psychol. Res. 19, 3-8. (doi:10.1177/0963721409359300)
96. Grodzinsky, Y. & Santi, S. 2008 The battle for Broca's region. Trends Cogn. Sci. 12, 474-480. (doi:10.1016/j. tics.2008.09.001)
97. Friederici, A., Bahlmann, J., Friederich, R. & Makuuchi, M. 2011 The neural basis of recursion and complex syntactic hierarchy. Biolinguistics 5, 87-104.
98. Pallier, C., Devauchelle, A.-D. & Dehaene, S. 2011 Cortical representation of the constituent structure of sentences. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 108, 2522-2527. (doi:10.1073/pnas.1018711108)
99. De Vries, M. H., Christiansen, M. H. & Petersson, K. M. 2011 Learning recursion: multiple nested and crossed dependencies. Biolinguistics 5, 10-35.
100. Baayen, R. H. & Hendrix, P. 2011 Sidestepping the combinatorial explosion: towards a processing model based on discriminative learning. In LSA workshop 'Empirically examining parsimony and redundancy in usage-based models'.
101. Baker, J., Deng, L., Glass, J., Lee, C., Morgan, N. & O'Shaughnessy, D. 2009 Research developments and directions in speech recognition and understanding, part 1. IEEE Signal Process. Mag. 26, 75-80. (doi:10. 1109/MSP.2009.932166)
102. Koehn, P. 2009 Statistical machine translation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.