Literature DB >> 30138672

Semantic composition of sentences word by word: MEG evidence for shared processing of conceptual and logical elements.

Linmin Zhang 张琳敏1, Liina Pylkkänen2.   

Abstract

Human language is a mixture of many types of elements, some clearly conceptual, like dog and run, and others more functional/logical, such as negation or quantificational elements (not, many, all). While theories are emerging for the neurobiology of conceptual combination, the neural mechanisms of integrating concepts with logical information remain largely unstudied. Do neural correlates of concept composition also reflect the composition of concepts with logical elements? In a previous MEG study, we have shown that in noun-noun compounds (e.g., tomato soup), the conceptual specificity of the first word modulates left anterior temporal lobe (LATL) amplitudes elicited on the second word, suggesting an effect of conceptual specificity, or informativeness, on the process of conceptual combination. Here we tested how this pattern is affected by negation, which has the ability to reverse informativeness relations: for example, while poodle is conceptually more informative than dog, no dog negates more possibilities and is therefore more informative than no poodle. We manipulated the informativeness of sentential subjects by fully crossing conceptual specificity (poodle vs. dog) with the presence of negation (no vs. a) to create positive and negative sentences (e.g., no/a-(green)-lizard-is-sleeping) and tested whether the effect of conceptual specificity was reversed for the integration of negative as compared to positive subjects. Exactly this pattern was observed in the LATL and surrounding fronto-temporal cortex during the processing of the sentence-final verb, suggesting a shared mechanism that tracks informativeness in integrating conceptual and logical elements in this network.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Conceptual knowledge; Language comprehension; Magnetoencephalography; Semantic composition; Sentential polarity

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30138672     DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2018.08.016

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neuropsychologia        ISSN: 0028-3932            Impact factor:   3.139


  5 in total

1.  Neural basis of basic composition: what we have learned from the red-boat studies and their extensions.

Authors:  Liina Pylkkänen
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2019-12-16       Impact factor: 6.237

2.  Neural dynamics of semantic composition.

Authors:  Bingjiang Lyu; Hun S Choi; William D Marslen-Wilson; Alex Clarke; Billi Randall; Lorraine K Tyler
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2019-09-30       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  Left posterior temporal cortex is sensitive to syntax within conceptually matched Arabic expressions.

Authors:  Suhail Matar; Julien Dirani; Alec Marantz; Liina Pylkkänen
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-03-30       Impact factor: 4.379

4.  Composition within and between Languages in the Bilingual Mind: MEG Evidence from Korean/English Bilinguals.

Authors:  Sarah F Phillips; Liina Pylkkänen
Journal:  eNeuro       Date:  2021-11-03

5.  Functional differentiation in the language network revealed by lesion-symptom mapping.

Authors:  William Matchin; Alexandra Basilakos; Dirk-Bart den Ouden; Brielle C Stark; Gregory Hickok; Julius Fridriksson
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2021-12-09       Impact factor: 6.556

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.