Cited by 37Neurobiology of Language and BilingualismSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic VariationLanguage Development and Disorders

Lists with and without syntax: a new approach to measuring the neural processing of syntax

Open access
Law, Ryan, Pylkkänen, Liina·2021·The Journal of Neuroscience

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

In the neurobiology of syntax, a methodological challenge is to vary syntax while holding semantics constant. Changes in syntactic structure usually correlate with changes in meaning. We approached this challenge from a new angle. We deployed word lists—typically, the unstructured control in studies of syntax—as both test and control stimuli. Three-noun lists (“lamps, dolls, guitars”) were embedded in sentences (“The eccentric man hoarded lamps, dolls, guitars…”) and in longer lists (“forks, pen, toilet, rodeo, lamps, dolls, guitars…”). This allowed us to minimize contributions from lexical semantics and local phrasal combinatorics: the same words occurred in both conditions, and in neither case did the list items locally compose into phrases (e.g., “lamps” and “dolls” do not form a phrase). Crucially, the list partakes in a syntactic tree in one case but not the other. Lists-in-sentences increased source-localized MEG activity at ∼250–300 ms from each of the list item onsets in the left inferior frontal cortex, at ∼300–350 ms in the left anterior temporal lobe and, most reliably, at ∼330–400 ms in left posterior temporal cortex. In contrast, the main effects of semantic association strength, which we also varied, localized in the left temporoparietal cortex, with high associations increasing activity at ∼400 ms. This dissociation offers a novel characterization of the structure versus word meaning contrast in the brain: the frontotemporal network that is familiar from studies of sentence processing can be driven by the sheer presence of global sentence structure, while associative semantics has a more posterior neural signature. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Human languages all have a syntax, which both enables the infinitude of linguistic creativity and determines what is grammatical in a language. The neurobiology of syntactic processing has, however, been challenging to characterize despite decades of study. One reason is pure manipulations of syntax are difficult to design. The approach here offers a novel control of two variables that are notoriously hard to keep constant when syntax is manipulated: word meaning and phrasal combinatorics. The same noun lists occurred inside longer lists and sentences, while semantic associations also varied. Our MEG results show that classic frontotemporal language regions can be driven by sentence structure even when local semantic contributions are absent. In contrast, the left temporoparietal junction tracks associative relationships.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1523/jneurosci.1179-20.2021

Cites

67 of 67 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The human language network is sensitive to abstract hierarchical rules across isolated phrases, naturalistic narratives, and syntactically well-formed but semantically empty stimuli.

    “it is sensitive to abstract hierarchical rules in isolated phrases and sentences [31, 108, 109, 110], in naturalistic narratives [111, 112, 113, 114], and in syntactically well-formed but semantically empty (”

    From Dissociating language and thought in large language models (2024) · cites this paper as [110]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 68 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Kim S, Pylkkänen L (2020) Is semantic composition in the left anterior temporal lobe blind to syntax? Paper presented at 33rd Annual CUNY Human Sentence Processing Conference, Amherst, MA, March.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Law, R., & Pylkkänen, L.
Affiliations
New York University Abu Dhabi (AE)
Corresponding author
Law, Ryan
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Published
2021-01-26
Volume
41
Issue
10
Pages
2186-2196
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W3123107951
Cited by
37
References
68
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 6
FWCI
2.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
New York University Abu Dhabi Institute (Grant G1001)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
Keywords
syntactic processing, word lists, semantic association, left inferior frontal cortex, left anterior temporal lobe, temporoparietal junction, sentence structure, word meaning, magnetoencephalography
MeSH terms
Adult, Brain, Cognition, Female, Humans, Language, Linguistics, Male, Photic Stimulation, Semantics, Magnetoencephalography, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review