Abstract

In the sentence “The captain who the sailor greeted is tall,” the connection between the relative pronoun and the object position of greeted represents a long-distance dependency (LDD), necessary for the interpretation of “the captain” as the individual being greeted. Whereas the lesion-based record shows preferential involvement of only the left inferior frontal (LIF) cortex, associated with Broca's aphasia, during real-time comprehension of LDDs, the neuroimaging record shows additional involvement of the left posterior superior temporal (LPST) and lower parietal cortices, which are associated with Wernicke's aphasia. We test the hypothesis that this localization incongruence emerges from an interaction of memory and linguistic constraints involved in the real-time implementation of these dependencies and which had not been previously isolated. Capitalizing on a long-standing psycholinguistic understanding of LDDs as the workings of an active filler, we distinguish two linguistically defined mechanisms: GAP-search, triggered by the retrieval of the relative pronoun, and GAP-completion, triggered by the retrieval of the embedded verb. Each mechanism is hypothesized to have distinct memory demands and given their distinct linguistic import, potentially distinct brain correlates. Using fMRI, we isolate the two mechanisms by analyzing their relevant sentential segments as separate events. We manipulate LDD-presence/absence and GAP-search type (direct/indirect) reflecting the absence/presence of intervening islands. Results show a direct GAP-search—LIF cortex correlation that crucially excludes the LPST cortex. Notably, indirect GAP-search recruitment is confined to supplementary-motor and lower-parietal cortex indicating that GAP presence alone is not enough to engage predictive functions in the LIF cortex. Finally, GAP-completion shows recruitment implicating the dorsal pathway including: the supplementary motor cortex, left supramarginal cortex, precuneus, and anterior/dorsal cingulate. Altogether, the results are consistent with previous findings connecting GAP-search, as we define it, to the LIF cortex. They are not consistent with an involvement of the LPST cortex in any of the two mechanisms, and therefore support the view that the LPST cortex is not crucial to LDD implementation. Finally, results support neurocognitive architectures that involve the dorsal pathway in LDD resolution and that distinguish the memory commitments of the LIF cortex as sensitive to specific language-dependent constraints beyond phrase-structure building considerations.

Highlights

  • A long-distance or filler-gap dependency (LDD) is a syntacticosemantic relation between a pronominal element and a syntactically licensed position, or GAP, in an embedded clause

  • Past neuroimaging work has shown that even though longdistance dependencies seem to recruit the workings of the left inferior frontal (LIF) cortex, they recruit the workings of the left posterior superior temporal (LPST) cortex

  • We interpret the LIF cortex preferential activation associated with GAP-searchdirect as resulting from an interaction of two factors involved in LDD resolution: (a) the prediction of a GAP, and (b) the possibility that the GAP be found within the syntactic and semantic contexts immediately after the relative pronoun (RELPRO), that is, when nothing in the unfolding syntactic and semantic structure prevents the licensing of the GAP

Read more

Summary

Introduction

A long-distance or filler-gap dependency (LDD) is a syntacticosemantic relation between a pronominal element and a syntactically licensed position, or GAP, in an embedded clause. The LDD is the linguistic device that allows the pronominal element to be interpreted within the embedded clause. In LDDs, these mechanisms are observed in the interpretation of the relative pronoun both as the object of the embedded verb (e.g., the frightenee) and as the coreferent to the head noun antecedent (e.g., The captain), mechanisms that are presumably grounded in fundamental properties of sentence composition such as argument structure licensing and discourse linking and in the neurological properties of the linguistic subsystems that support those properties (e.g., Frazier et al, 1983; Frazier and Clifton, 1989; Grodzinsky, 1989; Swinney et al, 1989; Swinney and Zurif, 1995; Gibson, 1998; Grodzinsky, 2000; Phillips, 2003; Avrutin, 2006). Understanding the cortical distribution of these dependencies gives us insight into the basic commitments that any neurocognitive model of language must allow with respect to sentence composition in addition to the interactions of sentence composition with other components of cognition, most notably memory

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call