Chomsky was right: We have a 'grammar' in our head

ceasefiremagazine.co.uk

Noam Chomsky
This story about each of us possessing an internal grammar buried in the functions of our brains brings this blog full circle.  It was a post, Your Brain Spots Grammar Error You Might Miss, that gave me the idea for Science News for Writers (SNfW).

My feeling is that Latinate grammars are an artificial construct applied to English, which we all should know to be a weird conglomeration of ancient Celtic mixed into a stew of German and French seasoned with both made-up words and a sprinkling of words from many other languages that changes faster than the OED can add new words and drop those whose fad has passed.  Trying to force what amounts the foot of a platypus into a rigid Latin shoe strikes me as a very pure form of mental masturbation.  A lot of fun while you're doing it, but what have you got when you're done?This research out of the University of Oregon was, at least to me, something most writers of any field would find interesting not just because of the result but what it added to the debate between adherents of a Latinate grammar and those who support a natural grammar.

So now it's becoming more and more clear that the ultimate grammar of English (and all other languages as well) resides in a small section of our brains that works to sort out sense and meaning without our being aware of the effort.  Either a sentence makes sense; or it doesn't.  Not based on artificial rules but whether our brain can derive a sense and meaning from what is said or written.

Here's the report, as always with a link to the full study in the attribution.
*  *  *  *  *

Chomsky was right: We do have a 'grammar' in our head

A team of neuroscientists has found new support for MIT linguist Noam Chomsky's decades-old theory that we possess an "internal grammar" that allows us to comprehend even nonsensical phrases.  "One of the foundational elements of Chomsky's work is that we have a grammar in our head, which underlies our processing of language," explains David Poeppel, the study's senior researcher and a professor in New York University's Department of Psychology. "Our neurophysiological findings support this theory: we make sense of strings of words because our brains combine words into constituents in a hierarchical manner--a process that reflects an 'internal grammar' mechanism."

The research, which appears in the latest issue of the journal Nature Neuroscience, builds on Chomsky's 1957 work, Syntactic Structures (1957). It posited that we can recognize a phrase such as "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" as both nonsensical and grammatically correct because we have an abstract knowledge base that allows us to make such distinctions even though the statistical relations between words are non-existent.

Neuroscientists and psychologists predominantly reject this viewpoint, contending that our comprehension does not result from an internal grammar; rather, it is based on both statistical calculations between words and sound cues to structure. That is, we know from experience how sentences should be properly constructed--a reservoir of information we employ upon hearing words and phrases. Many linguists, in contrast, argue that hierarchical structure building is a central feature of language processing.

In an effort to illuminate this debate, the researchers explored whether and how linguistic units are represented in the brain during speech comprehension.

To do so, Poeppel, who is also director of the Max Planck Institute for Empirical Aesthetics in Frankfurt, and his colleagues conducted a series of experiments using magnetoencephalography (MEG), which allows measurements of the tiny magnetic fields generated by brain activity, and electrocorticography (ECoG), a clinical technique used to measure brain activity in patients being monitored for neurosurgery.

The study's subjects listened to sentences in both English and Mandarin Chinese in which the hierarchical structure between words, phrases, and sentences was dissociated from intonational speech cues--the rise and fall of the voice--as well as statistical word cues. The sentences were presented in an isochronous fashion--identical timing between words--and participants listened to both predictable sentences (e.g., "New York never sleeps," "Coffee keeps me awake"), grammatically correct, but less predictable sentences (e.g., "Pink toys hurt girls"), or word lists ("eggs jelly pink awake") and various other manipulated sequences.

The design allowed the researchers to isolate how the brain concurrently tracks different levels of linguistic abstraction--sequences of words ("furiously green sleep colorless"), phrases ("sleep furiously" "green ideas"), or sentences ("Colorless green ideas sleep furiously")--while removing intonational speech cues and statistical word information, which many say are necessary in building sentences.

Their results showed that the subjects' brains distinctly tracked three components of the phrases they heard, reflecting a hierarchy in our neural processing of linguistic structures: words, phrases, and then sentences--at the same time.

"Because we went to great lengths to design experimental conditions that control for statistical or sound cue contributions to processing, our findings show that we must use the grammar in our head," explains Poeppel. "Our brains lock onto every word before working to comprehend phrases and sentences. The dynamics reveal that we undergo a grammar-based construction in the processing of language."

This is a controversial conclusion from the perspective of current research, the researchers note, because the notion of abstract, hierarchical, grammar-based structure building is rather unpopular.

Related stories:
WRITING, READING & TECHNIQUE
Story Source:  Materials provided by New York University.  Nai Ding, Lucia Melloni, Hang Zhang, Xing Tian, David Poeppel. Cortical tracking of hierarchical linguistic structures in connected speech. Nature Neuroscience, 2015.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

On Being Humble: E.B. White was Right in Charlotte's Web

Image
It seems the best authors have a knack for accurately describing the personality traits of their characters.  For example, the character change experienced by Ebenezer Scrooge in Dickens A Christmas Carol is considered by research psychologists to be spot on for how the process of change works. How true to life was Scrooge's change? Is this ability to describe a character strictly from watching others?  Business writer Peter Drucker says in his semi-autobiographical book, Adventures of a Bystander that he and many of the other writers he knows are essentially bystanders, observing what is going on around them. Another example of a writer getting it right is E.B. White's popular children's book, Charlotte's Web.  Research psychologist Peter Samuelson and his team are researching the deeper meaning of humility.  Among their conclusions?  E.B. White displayed insight into humility and its underlying attributes. Here's the story : *  *  *  *  * The Two
Read more

Workout supplements: An emerging eating disorder in men?

Image
therewontbeanydoves.wordpress.com When developing a fictional character, you may not think about the character using large amounts of over-the-counter dietary supplements.  Especially a man who uses large amounts of workout supplements. While there has been widespread publicity on the dangers of the non-prescribed use of anabolic steroids, not much is said about legal, over-the-counter supplements.  Are there risks?  And if so, what are they?  There are several things the writer should consider. Supplement use is becoming an eating disorder with many men who use them to prepare for and recover from a workout. There is growing evidence of a link between muscle-building supplements and testicular cancer. There is evidence that over-the counter medications and supplements are the most common causes of drug-induced liver failure (a rare event, but still a risk.)  There is even evidence that, “certain popular herbal and dietary supplements can also cause liver damage,"
Read more

Remember faces but not names? You got it wrong.

Image
Source:   Daily Excelsior So, you think you're good at remembering faces, but terrible with names? New research has revealed we are actually better at remembering names than faces The cringe-worthy experience of not being able to remember an acquaintance's name leads many of us to believe we are terrible with names. However, new research has revealed this intuition is misleading; we are actually better at remembering names than faces. With the Christmas party season fast approaching, there will be plenty of opportunity to re-live the familiar, and excruciatingly-awkward, social situation of not being able to remember an acquaintance's name. This cringe-worthy experience leads many of us to believe we are terrible at remembering names. However, new research has revealed this intuition is misleading; we are actually better at remembering names than faces. The authors of the study, from the University of York, suggest that when we castigate ourselves f
Read more

How laughter leads to love.

Image
James Cagney rubs a grapefruit half in the face of Mae Clarke  in the classic flick, Public Enemy (1931), written by Kubec Glasmon and John Bright, adaptation for the screen by Harvey Thew.  Funny? Yes.  A rom-com?  Not really.  Great scene, though. Between romance novels and rom-com movies and television, there is a never ending, ever growing market for romance.  So what leads to romance?  Of everything, it is laughter.  Not at, but with.  So here's how it works:  Boy meets girl.  Boy gets the girl to laugh.  (Add a few tasty comedic or dramatic interludes), and viola, girl catches boy (after boy makes a complete horse's ass of himself,) and the happy couple goes giggling into the sunset.   Formulaic?  Very much so.   Greatly entertaining?  Very much so. Until kids, mortgage and divorce. . . but that's a story for later. Here's a report on laughter in romance, with a link to the full study in the attribution. *  *  *  *  * Laught
Read more

The Downside of Being 'Class Clown'

Image
Source:  Bart's Blackboard Down side of being dubbed 'class clown' Class clowns' off-task antics amuse and delight their classmates during first and second grades, making them the most sought-after playmates on the playground in early elementary school.  But by the time these mischievous boys are promoted to third grade, they plummet to the bottom of the social circle as classmates' disapproval of their behavior grows, a new study found. Perhaps most worrisome is that by third grade, playful boys may be internalizing others' negative assessments and begin viewing themselves as social failures, possibly setting them on a course for a host of poor academic and developmental outcomes, said researcher Lynn A. Barnett, an educational psychologist and professor of recreation, sport and tourism at the University of Illinois. These sudden reversals in playful boys' social fortunes from first to third grade may be classmates' mirroring of teachers
Read more