Prolegomena to a neurocomputational architecture for human grammatical encoding and decoding

Neuroinformatics

Volumn 12, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 111-142

  Kempen, Gerard ^a,b  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR PSYCHOLINGUISTICS   (Netherlands)

^b LEIDEN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Competitive structural optimization; Grammatical decoding; Grammatical encoding; Grammatical movement; IAC; Interactive activation and competition; Language comprehension; Language production; Neurocognitive linguistics; Parsing; Psycholinguistics; Sentence processing; Unification

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; COMPREHENSION; COMPUTER SIMULATION; HUMAN; LANGUAGE; LEARNING; PHYSIOLOGY; SEMANTICS;

COMPREHENSION; COMPUTER SIMULATION; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; LEARNING; MODELS, NEUROLOGICAL; NEURAL NETWORKS (COMPUTER); SEMANTICS;

EID: 84894480977     PISSN: 15392791     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s12021-013-9191-4     Document Type: Article

References (102)

1. Acheson, D. J.; & MacDonald, M. C. (2009). Verbal working memory and language production: common approaches to the serial ordering of verbal information. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 50-68.
2. Acheson, D. J.; Hamidi, M.; Binder, J. R.; & Postle, B. R. (2011). A common neural substrate for language production and verbal working memory. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 1358-1367.
3. Alday, P.M.; Schlesewky, M.; & Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. (2013). Towards a computational model of actor-based language comprehension. Neuroinformatics. doi: 10.1007/s12021-013-9198-x (in this issue).
4. Arbib, M. A. (1989). The Metaphorical Brain 2: Neural Networks and Beyond. New York: Wiley.
5. Baddeley, A. D. (2012). Working memory: theories, models, and controversies. Annual Review of Psychology, 12, 1-29.
6. Baggio, G.; & Hagoort, P. (2011). The balance between memory and unification in semantics: a dynamic account of the N400. Language & Cognitive Processes, 26, 1338-1367.
7. Barrès, V.; & Lee, J. (2013). Template Construction Grammar: from visual scene description to language comprehension and agrammatism. Neuroinformatics. doi: 10.1007/s12021-013-9197-y (in this issue).
8. Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577-610.
9. beim Graben, P.; Gerth, S.; & Vasisthth, S. (2008). Towards dynamical system models of language-related brain potentials. Cognitive Neurodynamics, 2, 229-255.
10. Bird, C. M.; & Burgess, N. (2008). The hippocampus and memory: insights from spatial processing. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9, 182-194.
11. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I.; & Schlesewsky, M. (2009). The role of prominence information in the real time comprehension of transitive constructions: A cross-linguistic approach. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3, 19-58.
12. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I.; & Schlesewsky, M. (2013). Reconciling time, space and function: a new dorsal-ventral stream model of sentence comprehension. Brain and Language, 125, 60-76.
13. Brouwer, H.; Fitz, H.; & Hoeks, J. (2012). Getting real about semantic illusions: rethinking the functional role of the P600 in language comprehension. Brain Research, 1446, 127-143.
14. Buchsbaum, B. R.; & D'Esposito, M. (2008). The search for the phonological store: from loop to convolution. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20, 762-778.
15. Byrne, P.; Becker, S.; & Burgess, N. (2007). Remembering the past and imagining the future: a neural model of spatial memory and imagery. Psychological Review, 114, 340-375.
16. Cowan, N. (2005). Working memory capacity. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
17. De Smedt, K.J.M. (1990). Incremental sentence generation: A computer model of grammatical encoding. PhD dissertation, Radboud University, Nijmegen.
18. Diana, R. A.; Yonelinas, A. P.; & Ranganath, C. (2007). Imaging recollection and familiarity in the medial temporal lobe: a three-component model. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 379-386.
19. Duff, M. C.; & Brown-Schmidt, S. (2012). The hippocampus and the flexible use and processing of language. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 1-11.
20. Duff, M. C.; Gupta, R.; Hengst, J.; Tranel, D.; & Cohen, N. J. (2011). The use of definite references signals declarative memory: evidence from Hippocampal amnesia. Psychological Science, 22, 666-673.
21. Duncan, K.; Ketz, N.; Inati, S. J.; & Davachi, L. (2012). Evidence for area CA1 as a match/mismatch detector: a high-resolution fMRI study of the human hippocampus. Hippocampus, 22, 389-398.
22. Eberhard, K. M.; Cutting, J. C.; & Bock, J. K. (2005). Making syntax of sense: number agreement in sentence production. Psychological Review, 112, 531-559.
23. Elman, J. L. (1991a). Distributed representations, simple recurrent networks, and grammatical structure. Machine Learning, 7, 195-225.
24. Elman, J. L. (1991b). Finding structure in time. Cognitive Science, 14, 179-211.
25. Elman, J. L. (1993). Learning and development in neural networks: the importance of starting small. Cognition, 48, 71-99.
26. Featherston, S. (2004). Bridge verbs and V2 verbs - the same thing in spades? Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 23, 181-209.
27. Feldman, J. (2013). The neural binding problem(s). Cognitive Neurodynamics, 7, 1-11.
28. Ferreira, F.; & Clifton, C.; Jr. (1986). The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 348-368.
29. Friederici, A. D. (2002). Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Science, 6, 78-84.
30. Friederici, A. D. (2011). The brain basis of language processing. Physiological Reviews, 91, 1357-1392.
31. Friederici, A. D. (2012). The cortical language circuit: from auditory perception to sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16, 262-268.
32. Garrett, M. (1975). The analysis of sentence production. In G. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 9). New York: Academic.
33. Gayler, R. W. (2003). Vector symbolic architectures answer Jackendoff's challenges for cognitive neuroscience. In Slezak, P.P. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Joint International Conference on Cognitive Science. University of New South Wales. Available at http://cogprints.org/3983/
34. Gerth, S.; & beim Graben. (2009). Unifying syntactic theory and sentence processing difficulty through a connectionist minimalist parser. Cognitive Neurodynamics, 3, 297-316.
35. Gibson, E.; & Warren, T. (2004). Reading-time evidence for intermediate linguistic structure in long-distance dependencies. Syntax, 7, 55-78.
36. Glenberg, A.; Meyer, M.; & Lindem, K. (1987). Mental models contribute to foregrounding during text comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 69-83.
37. Gupta, P.; & MacWhinney, B. (1997). Vocabulary acquisition and verbal short-term memory: computational and neural bases. Brain and Language, 59, 267-333.
38. Hagoort, P. (2003). How the brain solves the binding problem for language: a neurocomputational model of syntactic processing. NeuroImage, 20, S18-S29.
39. Hagoort, P. (2005). On Broca, brain, and binding: a new framework. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 416-423.
40. Hagoort, P. (2007). The memory, unification, and control (MUC) model of language. In A. Meyer, L. Wheeldon, & A. Krott (Eds.), Automaticity and control in language processing. Hove UK: Psychology Press.
41. Harbusch, K.; & Kempen, G. (2002). A quantitative model of word order and movement in English, Dutch and German complement constructions. Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING-2002), Taipei (Taiwan). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
42. Harnad. (1990). The symbol grounding problem. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 42, 335-346.
43. Henderson, J. (1994). Connectionist syntactic parsing using temporal variable binding. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23, 353-379.
44. Hinaut, X.; & Dominey, P. F. (2013). Real-time parallel processing of grammatical structure in the fronto-striatal system: a recurrent network simulation study using reservoir computing. PLoS One, 8, e52946.
45. Howard, M. D.; Bhattacharyya, R.; O'Reilly, R. C.; Ascoli, G.; & Fellous, J.-M. (2011). Adaptive recall in hippocampus. In A. V. Samsonovich & K. R. Jóhannsdóttir (Eds.), Biologically inspired cognitive architectures 2011. Amsterdam/Washington: Ios Press.
46. Hummel, J. E.; & Holyoak, K. J. (2003). A symbolic-connectionist theory of relational infer- ence and generalization. Psychological Review, 110, 220-264.
47. January, D.; Trueswell, J. C.; & Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2009). Co-localization of Stroop and syntactic ambiguity resolution in Broca's area: Implications for the neural basis of sentence processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21, 2434-2444.
48. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: toward a cognitive science of language, inference and consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
49. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2006). How we reason. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
50. Joshi, A. K. (1985). Tree adjoining grammars: How much context-sensitivity is required to provide reasonable structural descriptions? In D. Dowty, L. Karttunen, & A. M. Zwicky (Eds.), Natural language parsing: Psychological, computational and theoretical perspectives. New York: Cambridge University Press.
51. Kanerva, P. (2009). Hyperdimensional computing: an introduction to computing in distributed representation with high-dimensional random vectors. Cognitive Computing, 1, 139-159.
52. Kaplan, R. M. (1972). Augmented transition networks as psychological models of sentence comprehension. Artificial Intelligence, 3, 77-100.
53. Kempen, G. (2000). Could grammatical encoding and grammatical decoding be subserved by the same processing module? The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 38-39.
54. Kempen, G.; & Harbusch, K. (2002). Performance Grammar: A declarative definition. In A. Nijholt, M. Theune, & H. Hondorp (Eds.), Computational Linguistics in the Netherlands 2001. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
55. Kempen, G.; & Harbusch, K. (2003). Dutch and German verb constructions in Performance Grammar. In P. A. M. Seuren & G. Kempen (Eds.), Verb constructions in German and Dutch. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
56. Kempen, G.; & Hoenkamp, E. (1982). Incremental sentence generation: implications for the structure of a syntactic processor. In J. Horecky (Ed.), Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING 1982), Prague, July 1982. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
57. Kempen, G.; & Hoenkamp, E. (1987). An incremental procedural grammar for sentence formulation. Cognitive Science, 11, 201-258.
58. Kempen, G.; & Vosse, T. (1989). Incremental syntactic tree formation in human sentence processing: a cognitive architecture based on activation decay and simulated annealing. Connection Science, 1, 273-290.
59. Kempen, G.; & Vosse, T. (1994). The Unification Space: A hybrid model of human syntactic processing. In The Seventh Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence processing. New York NY: CUNY Graduate Center.
60. Kempen, G.; Olsthoorn, N.; & Sprenger, S. A. (2012). Grammatical workspace sharing during language production and language comprehension: evidence from grammatical multitasking. Language & Cognitive Processes, 27, 345-380.
61. Kumaran, D.; & Maguire, E. A. (2007). Which computational mechanisms operate in the hippocampus during novelty detection? Hippocampus, 17, 735-748.
62. Kumaran, D.; & McClelland, J. L. (2012). Generalization through the recurrent interaction of episodic memories: a model of the hippocampal system. Psychological Review, 119, 573-616.
63. Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
64. Lewis, R. L.; & Vasishth, S. (2005). An activation-based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cognitive Science, 29, 375-419.
65. MacKay, D. G.; Johnson, L. W.; Fazel, W.; & James, L. E. (2013a). Compensating for language deficits in amnesia I: H.M'.s spared retrieval categories. Brain Sciences, 3, 262-293.
66. MacKay, D. G.; Johnson, L. W.; & Hadley, C. (2013b). Compensating for language deficits in amnesia II: H.M'.s spared versus impaired encoding categories. Brain Sciences, 3, 415-459.
67. Marcus, G. F. (2001). The algebraic mind. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
68. Marcus. (2009). How does the mind work? Insights from Biology. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 145-172.
69. Marcus, G. F. (2013). Evolution, memory, and the nature of syntactic representation. In J. J. Bolhuis & M. Everaert (Eds.), Birdsong, speech, and language: Exploring the evolution of mind and brain. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
70. McClelland, J. L.; McNaughton, B. L.; & O'Reilly, R. C. (1995). Why there are complementary learning systems in the hippocampus and neocortex: Insights from the successes and failures of connectionist models of learning and memory. Psychological Review, 95, 419-457.
71. Menenti, L.; Gierhan, S. M. E.; Segaert, K.; & Hagoort, P. (2011). Shared language: Overlap and segregation of the neuronal infrastructure for speaking and listening revealed by functional MRI. Psychological Science, 22, 1173-1182.
72. Meyer, L.; Obleser, J.; Anwander, A.; & Friederici, A. D. (2012). Linking ordering in Broca's area to storage in left temporo-parietal regions: the case of sentence processing. NeuroImage, 62, 1987-1998.
73. Novick, J. M.; Trueswell, J. C.; & Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2005). Cognitive control and parsing: reexamining the role of Broca's area in sentence comprehension. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 5, 263-281.
74. Novick, J. M.; Trueswell, J. C.; & Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2010). Broca's Area and language processing: evidence for the cognitive control connection. Language and Linguistic Compass, 4, 906-924.
75. Nozari, N.; Dell, G. S.; & Schwarz, M. F. (2011). Is comprehension necessary for error detection? A conflict-based account of monitoring in speech production. Cognitive Psychology, 63, 1-33.
76. O'Reilly, R. C.; Bhattacharyya, R.; Howard, M. D.; & Ketz, N. (2011). Complementary Learning Systems. Cognitive Science, 35, 1-20.
77. Okada, K.; & Hickock, G. (2006). Left posterior auditory-related cortices participate both in speech perception and speech production: neural overlap revealed by fMRI. Brain and Language, 98, 112-117.
78. Pallier, C.; Devauchelle, A.-D.; & Deheaene, S. (2011). Cortical representations of the constituent structure of sentences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108, 2522-2527.
79. Perham, N.; Marsh, J. E.; & Jones, D. M. (2009). Syntax and serial recall: How language supports short-term memory for order. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1285-1293.
80. Petersson, K.-M.; & Hagoort, P. (2012). The neurobiology of syntax: beyond string sets. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 367, 1971-1983.
81. Pollack, J. B. (1990). Recursive distributed representations. Artificial Intelligence, 46, 77-105.
82. Poppenk, J.; Walia, G.; McIntosh, A. R.; Joanisse, M. F.; Klein, D.; & Köhler, S. (2008). Why is the meaning of a sentence better remembered than its form? An fMRI study on the role of novelty-encoding processes. Hippocampus, 18, 909-918.
83. Pulvermüller, F. (2010). Brain embodiment of syntax and grammar: discrete combinatorial mechanisms spelt out in neuronal circuits. Brain and Language, 112, 167-179.
84. Sachs, J. S. (1967). Recognition memory for syntactic and semantic aspects of connected discourse. Perception & Psychophysics, 2, 437-442.
85. Segaert, K.; Menenti, L.; Weber, K.; Petersson, K. M.; & Hagoort, P. (2012). Shared syntax in language production and language comprehension: an fMRI study. Cerebral Cortex, 22, 1662-1670.
86. Shastri, L.; & Ajjanagadde, V. (1993). From simple associations to systematic reasoning: a connectionist representation of rules, variables, and dynamic bindings using temporal synchrony. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16, 417-494.
87. Smolensky, P. (1990). Tensor product variable binding and the representation of symbolic structures in connectionist systems. Artificial Intelligence, 46, 159-216.
88. Snijders, T. M.; Vosse, T.; Kempen, G.; van Berkum, J. J. A.; Peterson, K.-M.; & Hagoort, P. (2009). Retrieval and unification of syntactic structure in sentence comprehension: an fMRI study using word category ambiguity. Cerebral Cortex, 19, 1493-1503.
89. Staub, A. (2010). Eye movements and processing difficulty in object relative clauses. Cognition, 116, 71-86.
90. Stevenson, S. (1993). A competition-based explanation of syntactic attachment preferences and garden path phenomena. In Thirty-first Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Columbus OH: Ohio State University.
91. Stewart, T.; & Eliasmith, C. (2012). Compositionality and biologically plausible models. In M. Werning, W. Hinzen, & E. Machery (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of compositionality. Oxford UK: Oxford University Press.
92. Thothathiri, M.; Kim, A.; Trueswell, J. C.; & Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2012). Parametric effects of syntactic-semantic conflict in Broca's area during sentence processing. Brain and Language, 120, 259-264.
93. Tooley, K.; & Bock, J. K. (2011). The equivalence of syntactic priming in comprehension and production. Proceedings of the 24th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing. Stanford CA: Stanford University.
94. van der Velde, F.; & de Kamps, M. (2006). Neural blackboard architectures of combinatorial structures in cognition. Behavioral and Brain Science, 29, 37-70 and 88-108.
95. Vigliocco, G.; & Nicol, J. (1998). Separating hierarchical relations and word order in language production: Is proximity concord syntactic or linear? Cognition, 68, B13-B29.
96. 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.
97. Vosse, T.; & Kempen, G. (2008). Parsing verb-final clauses in German: Garden-path and ERP effects modeled by a parallel dynamic parser. In B. C. Love, K. McRae, & V. M. Sloutsky (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (Washington DC). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
98. Vosse, T.; & Kempen, G. (2009a). The unification space implemented as a localist neural net: predictions and error-tolerance in a constraint-based parser. Cognitive Neurodynamics, 3, 331-346.
99. Vosse, T.; & Kempen, G. (2009b). In defense of competition during syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 38, 1-9.
100. Woods, W. A. (1970). Transition network grammars for natural language analysis. Communications of the ACM, 13, 591-606.
101. Ye, Z.; Habets, B.; Jansma, B. M.; & Münte, T. F. (2011). Neural basis of linearization in speech production. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 3694-3702.
102. Zylberberg, A.; Slezak, D. F.; Roelfsema, P. R.; Dehaene, S.; & Sigman, M. (2010). The brain's router: a cortical network model of serial processing in the primate brain. PLoS Computational Biology, 6, e1000765.