Towards a computational(ist) neurobiology of language: correlational, integrated and explanatory neurolinguistics

Language, Cognition and Neuroscience

Volumn 30, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 357-366

  Embick, David ^a   Poeppel, David ^b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^b NEW YORK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR EMPIRICAL AESTHETICS   (Germany)

Author keywords

computation; explanation; levels; linguistic theory; reductionism; unification

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BRAIN FUNCTION; COGNITION; CORRELATIONAL NEUROLINGUISTICS; ELECTROCORTICOGRAPHY; EXPLANATORY NEUROLINGUISTICS; HUMAN; INTEGRATED NEUROLINGUISTICS; LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT; LANGUAGE PROCESSING; LEARNING; LINGUISTICS; MAGNETOENCEPHALOGRAPHY; NEUROBIOLOGY; NEUROIMAGING; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

EID: 84938520931     PISSN: 23273798     EISSN: 23273801     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/23273798.2014.980750     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. M.Carandini, (2012). From circuits to behavior: A bridge too far? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 15, 507–509.
2. N.Chomsky, (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3. N.Chomsky, (2000). New horizons in the study of language and mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4. N.Chomsky, (2005). Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry, 36, 1–22.
5. N.Chomsky,, & M.Halle, (1968). The sound pattern of English. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
6. M.Coltheart, (2006). What has functional neuroimaging told us about the Mind (so far)? Cortex, 42, 323–331. doi:10.1016/S0010-9452(08)70358-7
7. D.Embick, (2010a). Localism versus globalism in morphology and phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
8. D.Embick, (2010b). Stem alternations and stem distributions (Unpublished manuscript). University of Pennsylvania. http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~embick/stem-ms-10.pdf
9. D.Embick,, & A.Marantz, (2005). Cognitive neuroscience and the English past tense. Brain and Language, 93, 243–247. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2004.10.003
10. D.Embick,, & D.Poeppel, (2005). Mapping syntax using imaging: Problems and prospects for the study of neurolinguistic computation. In K.Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (2nd ed.). Oxford: Elsevier.
11. R.Fiorentino,, & D.Poeppel, (2007). Compound words and structure in the Lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22, 953–1000. doi:10.1080/01690960701190215
12. C.R.Gallistel, (1997). Neurons and memory. In Michael S. Gazzaniga (Ed.), Conversations in the cognitive neurosciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
13. C.R.Gallistel,, & A.P.King, (2009). Memory and the computational brain: Why cognitive science will transform neuroscience. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
14. B.Grothe, (2003). New roles for synaptic inhibition in sound localization. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 4, 540–550. doi:10.1038/nrn1136
15. M.Halle, (1959). The sound pattern of Russian mouton. s-Gravenhage: Mouton & Company.
16. J.Heinz, (2011a). Computational phonology – Part I: Foundations. Language and Linguistics Compass, 5, 140–152.
17. J.Heinz, (2011b). Computational phonology – Part II: Grammars, learning, and the future. Language and Linguistics Compass, 5, 153–168. doi:10.1111/j.1749-818X.2011.00268.x
18. R.Henson, (2005). What can functional neuroimaging tell the experimental psychologist? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A, 58, 193–233. doi:10.1080/02724980443000502
19. R.Jakobson,, G.Fant,, & M.Halle, (1951). Preliminaries to speech analysis. The distinctive features and their correlates. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
20. L.A.Jeffress, (1948). A place theory of sound localization. Journal of comparative and physiological psychology, 41, 35–39. doi:10.1037/h0061495
21. A.K.Joshi,, K.Vijay-Shanker,, & D.Weir, (1991). The convergence of mildly context-sensitive grammar formalisms. In T.Wasow & P.Sells (Eds.), The processing of linguistic structure (pp. 31-81). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
22. S.Lewis,, & C.Phillips, (in press). Aligning grammatical theories and language processing models. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research.
23. A.Marantz, (2005). Generative linguistics within the cognitive neuroscience of language. The Linguistic Review, 22, 429–445.
24. A.Marantz, (2013). No escape from morphemes in morphological processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28, 905–916. doi:10.1080/01690965.2013.779385
25. D.Marr, (1982). Vision. San Francisco, CA: WH Freeman.
26. W.Marslen-Wilson,, & L.K.Tyler, (1998). Rules, representations, and the English past tense. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2, 428–435. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(98)01239-X
27. W.Marslen-Wilson,, & L.K.Tyler, (2007). Morphology, language and the brain: The decompositional substrate for language comprehension. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 362, 823–836.
28. R.Mausfeld, (2012). On some unwarranted tactic assumptions in cognitive neuroscience. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 1–13. Article 67.
29. N.Mesgarani,, C.Cheung,, K.Johnson,, & E.F.Chang, (2014). Phonetic feature encoding in human superior temporal gyrus. Science, 343, 1006–1010.
30. J.Obleser,, A.Lahiri,, & C.Eulitz, (2004). Magnetic brain response mirrors extraction of phonological features from spoken vowels. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16, 31–39.
31. M.P.Page, (2006). What can't functional neuroimaging tell the cognitive psychologist? Cortex, 42, 428–443.
32. C.Phillips, (1996). Order and structure (PhD Thesis). Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
33. C.Phillips,, & E.Lau, (2004). Foundational issues. Journal of Linguistics, 40, 571–591.
34. C.Phillips,, T.Pellathy,, A.Marantz,, E.Yellin,, K.Wexler,, D.Poeppel,, & T.P.L.Roberts, (2000). Auditory cortex accesses phonological categories: An MEG mismatch study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12, 1038–1055.
35. D.Poeppel,, & D.Embick, (2005). Defining the relation between linguistics and neuroscience. In A.Cutler (Ed.), Twenty-first century psycholinguistics: Four cornerstones (pp. 103–120). Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
36. D.Poeppel, (2012). The maps problem and the mapping problem: Two challenges for a cognitive neuroscience of speech and language. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 29, 34–55.
37. M.Scharinger,, J.Merickel,, J.Riley,, & W.J.Idsardi, (2011). Neuromagnetic evidence for a featural distinction of English consonants: Sensor-and source-space data. Brain and language, 116, 71–82
38. K.N.Stevens, (2002). Toward a model for lexical access based on acoustic landmarks and distinctive features. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 111, 1872–1891.
39. L.Stockall,, & A.Marantz, (2006). A single-route, full decomposition model of morphological complexity: MEG evidence. Mental Lexicon, 1, 85–123.
40. N.S.Trubetzkoy, 1939. Grundzüge der Phonologie [Principles of Phonology]. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht.