Component Of Human Language Research Articles

The Processing of Negation and Polarity: An Overview

Negation is a universal component of human language; polarity sensitivity (i.e., lexical distributional constraints in relation to negation) is arguably so while being pervasive across languages. Negation has long been a field of inquiry in psychological theories and experiments of reasoning, which inspired many follow-up studies of negation and negation-related phenomena in psycholinguistics. In generative theoretical linguistics, negation and polarity sensitivity have been extensively studied, as the related phenomena are situated at the interfaces of syntax, semantics and pragmatics, and are thus extremely revealing about the architecture of grammar. With the now long tradition of research on negation and polarity in psychology and psycholinguistics, and the emerging field of experimental semantics and pragmatics, a multitude of interests and experimental paradigms have emerged which call for re-evaluations and further development and integration. This special issue contains a collection of 16 research articles on the processing of negation and negation-related phenomena including polarity items, questions, conditionals, and irony, using a combination of behavioral (e.g., rating, reading, eye-tracking and sentence completion) and neuroimaging techniques (e.g., EEG). They showcase the processing of negation and polarity with or without context, in various languages and across different populations (adults, typically developing and ADHD children). The integration of multiple theoretical and empirical perspectives in this collection provides new insights, methodological advances and directions for future research.

The not face: A grammaticalization of facial expressions of emotion

Facial expressions of emotion are thought to have evolved from the development of facial muscles used in sensory regulation and later adapted to express moral judgment.Negative moral judgment includes the expressions of anger, disgust and contempt. Here, we study the hypothesis that these facial expressions of negative moral judgment have further evolved into a facial expression of negation regularly used as a grammatical marker in human language. Specifically, we show that people from different cultures expressing negation use the same facial muscles as those employed to express negative moral judgment. We then show that this nonverbal signal is used as a co-articulator in speech and that, in American Sign Language, it has been grammaticalized as a non-manual marker. Furthermore, this facial expression of negation exhibits the theta oscillation (3–8Hz) universally seen in syllable and mouthing production in speech and signing. These results provide evidence for the hypothesis that some components of human language have evolved from facial expressions of emotion, and suggest an evolutionary route for the emergence of grammatical markers.

Animal Communication and Human Language: An overview

Comparative research has proven to be a fruitful field of study on the ontogenetic and phylogenetic evolution of language, and on the cognitive capacities unique to humans or shared with other animals. The degree of continuity between components of human language and non-human animal communication systems, as well as the existence of a core factor of language, are polemic subjects at present. In this article, we offer an overview of the research on animal communication, comparing the resulting data with the current knowledge on human language development. We try to summarize what is currently known about “language abilities” in multiple animals, and compare those facts to what is known about human language. The aim of the article is to provide an introduction to this particular topic, presenting the different sides of the arguments when possible. A special reference is made to the question of syntactic recursion as the main component of language, allegedly absent among non-human animals. We conclude that the current state of knowledge supports the existence of a certain degree of continuity between different aspects of animal communication and human language, including the syntactic domain.

The Meanings of Chimpanzee Gestures

Chimpanzees' use of gesture was described in the first detailed field study [1, 2], and natural use of specific gestures has been analyzed [3-5]. However, it was systematic work with captive groups that revealed compelling evidence that chimpanzees use gestures to communicate in a flexible, goal-oriented, and intentional fashion [6-8], replicated across all great ape species in captivity [9-17] and chimpanzees in the wild [18, 19]. All of these aspects overlap with human language but are apparently missing in most animal communication systems, including great ape vocalization, where extensive study has produced meager evidence for intentional use ([20], but see [21, 22]). Findings about great ape gestures spurred interest in a potential common ancestral origin with components of human language [23-25]. Of particular interest, given the relevance to language origins, is the question of what chimpanzees intend their gestures to mean; surprisingly, the matter of what the intentional signals are used to achieve has been largely neglected. Here we present the first systematic study of meaning in chimpanzee gestural communication. Individual gestures have specific meanings, independently of signaler identity, and we provide a partial "lexicon"; flexibility is predominantly in the use of multiple gestures for a specific meaning. We distinguish a range of meanings, from simple requests associated with just a few gestures to broader social negotiation associated with a wider range of gesture types. Access to a range of alternatives may increase communicative subtlety during important social negotiations.

Mirror Neurons and the Evolution of Embodied Language

Mirror neurons are a class of neurons first discovered in the monkey premotor cortex that activate both when the monkey executes an action and when it observes the same action made by another individual. These neurons enable individuals to understand actions performed by others. Two subcategories of mirror neurons in monkeys activate when they listen to action sounds and when they observe communicative gestures made by others, respectively. The properties of mirror neurons could constitute a substrate from which more sophisticated forms of communication evolved; this would make sense, given the anatomical and functional homology between part of the monkey premotor cortex and Broca's area (the “speech” area of the brain) in humans. We hypothesize that several components of human language, including some aspects of phonology and syntax, could be embedded in the organizational properties of the motor system and that a deeper knowledge of this system could shed light on how language evolved.

Correlating complexity: A typological approach

UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report (2005) Correlating complexity: a typological approach Ryan K. Shosted University of California, Berkeley “In sum, linguists don’t even think of trying to rate languages as good or bad, simple or complex.” (O’Grady et al. 2005: 7) Abstract Proceeding from the assumption that all languages are equally complex, there exists a corollary, widely held but poorly documented, herein referred to as the negative correlation hypothesis. It states: if one component of language is simplified then another must be elaborated. Here, this assumption is reformulated in terms of a scientific hypothesis and subjected to statistical analysis. Thirty-two geographically diverse languages representing 30 language families and two isolates are tested for syllable count and inflectional synthesis on the verb as a means of rating their phonological and morphological complexity, respectively. The correlation between these measures is found to be slightly positive (r=0.0704), but statistically insignificant (p>0.05), indicating that the negative correlation hypothesis, if it is to be retained, still awaits scientific confirmation. Introduction The complexity problem and holistic typology Among some linguists, it seems there is a tacit assumption that the various components of human language (phonology, morphology, the lexicon, syntax and semantics) correlate negatively within a single language based on complexity. From such an assumption, it could be argued that if a language is simple in terms of its phonology (e.g. if it has a low number of contrastive elements, distinctive features, allophonic alternations, etc.) the language as a system will somehow force elaboration in the areas of syntax or morphology, etc. Throughout this paper, I will refer to this notion as the “negative correlation hypothesis.” Introductory linguistics textbooks often note in their first few pages that all grammars are, in a sense, “created equal.” For example, Akmajian et al. (1997: 8) declare, “Although it is obvious that specific languages differ from each other on the surface, if we look closer we find that human languages are surprisingly similar. For instance, all known languages are at a similar level of complexity and detail— there is no such thing as a primitive language.” In their text, the first stated goal of Cipollone et al. (1998: 2) is to convince the reader that “[e]very language is enormously complex.” On the matter of what they call grammatical “equality,” O’Grady et al. (1997: 6) reason that “[i]t is futile to attempt to ‘rank’ languages in terms of relative sophistication.” Nonetheless, it seems clear to even the casual observer that some languages do in fact have smaller/simpler/less sophisticated linguistic components than corresponding components in other languages. For example, Ju|’hoan (Northern Khoisan) has 93 phonemic consonants and Yimas (Lower Sepik) has only twelve (see Table 2). How, then, can these two languages end up with “a similar level of complexity and detail” when all other linguistic components are taken into account? Based on the foundational assumption of “grammatical equality,” there are two possible answers: (1) Yimas compensates for what it lacks in terms of phonological complexity through elaboration (beyond that of Ju|’hoan) in terms of its syntax, morphology, semantics, etc.; or (2) There is some aspect of phonological complexity that is not effectively captured by simply counting the consonants in these two languages (i.e. the phonologies are equally complex when other variables are considered). Both are valid responses to the perplexing position we inherit from the dictum that all languages are equally complex (and the corollary, in the case of (1), that their components may not be). However, neither response, to my knowledge, has ever been validated using quantitative methods that produce falsifiable results—an astonishing lacuna, considering the widespread acceptance of grammatical equality. Several enlightening discussions of differential linguistic complexity have recently come forth. Dahl (2004: 42) observes: “Given that a language as a system can be seen as involving both resources [the inventory of structured linguistic units] and regulations [roughly, ‘rules’], it follows that a language could

Functional equivalence in pigeons.

Functional equivalences form the basis for semantics, an important component of human language. Among other things, they allow us to learn about objects or actions in their absence. There is good evidence that animals, such as pigeons, can acquire functional equivalences as well. The most studied procedure for establishing functional equivalences in pigeons involves many-to-one matching-to-sample training in which two samples are associated with the same correct comparison stimulus. The evidence for the development of simple functional equivalences when two sample stimuli are associated with a common comparison stimulus comes from several sources. The most convincing procedure for demonstrating functional equivalences in pigeons is the transfer of training design in which a new association acquired by one member of a presumed equivalence set results in an emergent relation with the other member of the set. Further, research suggests that the stimuli that comprise an equivalence set are represented by one of those samples. Finally, two other procedures used with pigeons have been shown to result in functional equivalences. One of these involves symmetry training in which two stimuli are presented successively in both orders. The other involves discriminations in which there are multiple successive reversals. Alice, a three year old, has learned that dogs are playful animals that lick your face and wag their tail. She looks happy when she sees a dog or when someone tells her about a dog. However, one day, when out for a walk, she passes a yard with a fenced in dog that barks loudly and lunges at her. When she gets home her mother tells he that her friend Jimmy has a new dog and they are going to go to Jimmy’s house to see it. Alice now shows some anxiety and isn’t sure that she wants to visit Jimmy. Alice has transferred some of the experience she had with the unfriendly dog to hearing about Jimmy’s dog without having had an unpleasant experience with the word dog. When objects and symbols for those objects take on similar meaning, emergent relations often develop between them such that a change in the meaning of one results in the change in the meaning of the other. These functional equivalences form the basis for an important component of human language, semantics, and allow us to learn about the attributes of objects or actions in their absence. The admonition, “Don’t drive to work on Main Street. There is a major traffic jam.” is likely to produce a change in behavior without actually experiencing the problem. Several years ago Peter Urcuioli and I embarked on a program of research to determine if animals, in particular pigeons, have the ability to form functional equivalences that would allow them to acquire relations between stimuli without specific prior experience with them. We used an approach that produced convergent evidence that pigeons do in fact have this ability. We also investigated the nature of the functional equivalences and found convergent evidence that not unlike words for humans; one of the functionally equivalent stimuli had become represented as the other.

Correlating Complexity: A Typological Approach

UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report (2005) Correlating complexity: a typological approach Ryan K. Shosted University of California, Berkeley “In sum, linguists don’t even think of trying to rate languages as good or bad, simple or complex.” (O’Grady et al. 2005: 7) Abstract Proceeding from the assumption that all languages are equally complex, there exists a corollary, widely held but poorly documented, herein referred to as the negative correlation hypothesis. It states: if one component of language is simplified then another must be elaborated. Here, this assumption is reformulated in terms of a scientific hypothesis and subjected to statistical analysis. Thirty-two geographically diverse languages representing 30 language families and two isolates are tested for syllable count and inflectional synthesis on the verb as a means of rating their phonological and morphological complexity, respectively. The correlation between these measures is found to be slightly positive (r=0.0704), but statistically insignificant (p>0.05), indicating that the negative correlation hypothesis, if it is to be retained, still awaits scientific confirmation. Introduction The complexity problem and holistic typology Among some linguists, it seems there is a tacit assumption that the various components of human language (phonology, morphology, the lexicon, syntax and semantics) correlate negatively within a single language based on complexity. From such an assumption, it could be argued that if a language is simple in terms of its phonology (e.g. if it has a low number of contrastive elements, distinctive features, allophonic alternations, etc.) the language as a system will somehow force elaboration in the areas of syntax or morphology, etc. Throughout this paper, I will refer to this notion as the “negative correlation hypothesis.” Introductory linguistics textbooks often note in their first few pages that all grammars are, in a sense, “created equal.” For example, Akmajian et al. (1997: 8) declare, “Although it is obvious that specific languages differ from each other on the surface, if we look closer we find that human languages are surprisingly similar. For instance, all known languages are at a similar level of complexity and detail— there is no such thing as a primitive language.” In their text, the first stated goal of Cipollone et al. (1998: 2) is to convince the reader that “[e]very language is enormously complex.” On the matter of what they call grammatical “equality,” O’Grady et al. (1997: 6) reason that “[i]t is futile to attempt to ‘rank’ languages in terms of relative sophistication.” Nonetheless, it seems clear to even the casual observer that some languages do in fact have smaller/simpler/less sophisticated linguistic components than corresponding components in other languages. For example, Ju|’hoan (Northern Khoisan) has 93 phonemic consonants and Yimas (Lower Sepik) has only twelve (see Table 2). How, then, can these two languages end up with “a similar level of complexity and detail” when all other linguistic components are taken into account? Based on the foundational assumption of “grammatical equality,” there are two possible answers: (1) Yimas compensates for what it lacks in terms of phonological complexity through elaboration (beyond that of Ju|’hoan) in terms of its syntax, morphology, semantics, etc.; or (2) There is some aspect of phonological complexity that is not effectively captured by simply counting the consonants in these two languages (i.e. the phonologies are equally complex when other variables are considered). Both are valid responses to the perplexing position we inherit from the dictum that all languages are equally complex (and the corollary, in the case of (1), that their components may not be). However, neither response, to my knowledge, has ever been validated using quantitative methods that produce falsifiable results—an astonishing lacuna, considering the widespread acceptance of grammatical equality. Several enlightening discussions of differential linguistic complexity have recently come forth. Dahl (2004: 42) observes: “Given that a language as a system can be seen as involving both resources [the inventory of structured linguistic units] and regulations [roughly, ‘rules’], it follows that a language could