The Biological Bases of Syntax-Semantics Interface in Natural

Languages: Cognitive Modeling and Empirical Evidence.

Evguenia MalaiaRonnie B. Wilbur

SLHS Department, Purdue Universityemalaya@purdue.edu

1

• event structure

WORLD-to-LANGUAGE

events in real world

parsed out and expressed in sentences

Each sentence centered around a predicate/verb

…and this is what we want to model

Parsing observable events:

Human languages parse and formulate observable events in a logically restricted fashion

(e.g. Son and Cole, 2008, Borer 1994, Ritter and Rosen 1998, Davis and Demidarche 2000, van Hout 2000, Hale and Keyser 1993, Van Valin 2007)

Vendler (1967)

four syntactically relevant semantic types of predicates: – homogenous // atelic States and Activities

sleep (for an hour)walk (for an hour)

– transitions // telic Achievements and Accomplishments die (in an hour) paint a portrait (in two weeks)

3

Model of Event Structure

• Pustejovsky 2001

Sub-event type Subevent

States S

Processes P

Transitions: Achievements S → S

Transitions: Accomplishments P → S

Atelic

Telic transition to end state

Model of Event Structure

• Ramchand (2008) - Divide events into – Initiation phrase InitP– Process phrase ProcP– Result phrase ResP

event structure

• Participant involved:– Initiation phrase: Initiator– Process phrase: Undergoer– Result phrase: Resultee

argument structure

5

Ramchand Event Structure Model Tree

6

Undergoer

Resultee

(Rheme)

Initiator

proc

res

init

initP (vP)

procP

resP

- verbal morphology of individual languages can represent individuated elements of event structure… - which allows use of a single verbal root in multiple event structures…- to yield telic or atelic meanings.

XP

Linguistic universals meet language processing

7

Do we have empirical evidence that telicity affects the way human languages are processed?

Options:

• complete analysis of all known languages of the world with respect to their event structure

• evidence from psycholinguistic and neurolinguistic research

Linguistic universals meet language processing

8

• Reaction times: - O’Bryan (2003) - independent effects of telicity and transitivity :word maze experiment with reduced relative clauses. :reaction time advantage on the preposition “by” for sentences with telic

verbs in the relative clause, as compared to those with atelic verbs; :independent advantage for the second argument in sentences with

obligatorily transitive verbs (both telic and atelic).

- Friedmann, Taranto, Shapiro, and Swinney (2008) priming effect for obligatorily intransitive telic verbs, but not for unergatives

obligatorily intransitive atelics.

• ERPs

- Malaia, Wilbur, Weber-Fox (in press) ERP evidence for telicity effects on syntactic processing in garden-path sentences. Brain and Language.

The baby nursed/ burped by the mother rolled over. The customer shaved / cheated by the barber left no tip. The prisoner taught/ halted by the agent tried to escape.

ERPs on the RRC: HP group

9

µV

verb

100 500

-2.5

7.5

msμV

FC3

FZ

FC4

VEOG

by the noun

The actress awakened by the writer left in a hurry. (telic condition)

The actress worshipped by the writer left in a hurry. (atelic condition)

AN

P200

ERPs on the RRC: NP group

10

verb by the noun

FC3

FCZ

FC4

VEOG

The actress awakened by the writer left in a hurry. (telic condition)

The actress worshipped by the writer left in a hurry. (atelic condition)

100 500

-2.5

7.5

msμV

N100

P200

ERPs on the RRC: HP and NP groups

11

Telic condition Atelic condition

NP group

by the Agent

HP group

CZ

by the Agent

msµV-2.5

7.5500 1000 2000

msµV-2.5

7.5500 20001000

processing of syntactic information interacts with the previous semantic context. (cf. Yamada & Neville, 2007; Osterhout, Holcomb, Swinney, 1994)

Frame alternations: telic verbs

New argument does not require re-assignment of thematic roles

12

actress writer actress

awakened (intransitive) awakened (transitive)

Frame alternations: atelic verbs

13

New argument requires thematic role re-assignment

actress actresswriter

worshipped (intr.) worshipped (transitive)

Linguistic universals, language processing – unified account?

14

Where did grammatically relevant semantic

features come from?

Research on Signed languages: tied to the visual modality in both production and perception provide the missing link

15

Event structure in American Sign Language

Telic event signs

a. change of aperture b. orientation change c. setting change d. change of location handshape change proximal/distal with contact

SEND HAPPEN POSTPONE HIT

Atelic event signs

(a) RUN [tracing: straight] (b) PLAY (tracing + TM) (c) READ (tracing + TM)

Telic and atelic predicates in signed languages

Event Structure and SLs

• We already know that telicity plays a role in sign morphology:– [delayed completive] aspect only applies to telic stems

(Brentari 1998). – Durative and continuative aspects cannot apply to telic

predicates (Wilbur 2005, in press).– Some mouth non-manuals are distributed according to

predicate telicity type (Schalber 2004, 2006; Schalber & Grose 2006) in Austrian Sign Language and American Sign Language.

:: production differences reflecting semantic distinction of event type

16

Event Visibility Hypothesis

• The Event Visibility Hypothesis (EVH) argues that the semantics of event structure (subevents) are visible in predicate sign formation.

• Can see if an end state is intended by way sign movement comes to a stop:

- rapidly for end states - regularly for no end state.

17

Motion Analysis

• ASL signs representing telic events appear to contain ‘perceptually significant rapid deceleration to a stop’.

• Hypothesis: Signs representing telic events will have steeper deceleration slopes than those representing atelic events, because it will provide an end-marking to indicate the final State.

18

Methodology

• Stimuli:– 29 telic and 21 atelic signs chosen, randomized and

presented to native bilingual ASL signer.

• Conditions– Signs in isolation (done twice)– Signs in carrier phrase SIGN X AGAIN– Signs in medial sentence position IX3 X TODAY – Signs in final position TODAY IX3 X (NB: data analysis not

yet finished). – Each sign produced 4 times by signer

x 29 for telic = 116 cases for telics x 21 for atelic = 84 cases for atelics.

• Equipment– Gypsy 3.0 wired motion capture suit– Pair of 18-sensor Metamotion Cybergloves. – Six special motion capture ceiling mounted cameras.

19

20

Metric: the Slope from the velocity peak to the next velocity minimum, reflecting the deceleration to(ward) a stop.

Slope Atelic Telic Ratio Telic/Atelic

Isolation 1 * -.09 -.14 1.46 Isolation 2 * -.12 -.18 1.46 Carrier Phrase** -.12 -.23 1.97 Sentence 1 * -.14 -.23 1.62

Difference between atelic and telic slopes is significant at *p<.05 **p<.001

e.g. Mean telic slope is 1.46 times steeper than mean atelic slope in isolation

Deceleration Results

Sign movements have internal structure based on velocity changesSigners are making production distinctions

21

What is recipient doing for processing?

ASL production studies - left hemispheric activation of Broca’s area (cf. Corina et al. 1999, Horowitz et al. 2003, Emmorey 2002, 2003, 2004).

ASL comprehension studies - bilateral activation in Broca’s area (Levänen et al, 2001, Neville et al., 1998, etc)

- also typical for audiovisual stimuli comprehension in spoken languages (cf. Capek et al., 2004).

Broca’s area is activated during both syntactic and semantic processing in spoken languages - integrates syntactic and semantic information during sentence comprehension (Hagoort, 2005).

:: spoken and signed languages appear to be highly correlated in the use of Broca’s area in the left hemisphere for integration of structural and lexical linguistic information.

Hypotheses on ASL predicates

Telic predicates in ASL incorporate the end-state and internal argument

Atelic predicates do not simpler smaller load?

Hypothesis: ASL predicate signs with distinct types of event structure (telic vs. atelic) would elicit differentiated activation patterns in Broca’s area (BA 44/45) of left IFG.

23

Pilot fMRI study of ASL predicates

Participants: 5 healthy adults - native ASL signers: Age Eye dominance Hand dominance Linguistic status

48 Right Right DEAF

20 Right Left DEAF

22 Right Right Child of Deaf Adult (hearing CODA)

21 Right Right Child of Deaf Adult (hearing CODA)

22 Right Right Child of Deaf Adult (hearing CODA)

Subjects were presented with visual stimuli consisting of telic and atelic ASL signs in a block paradigm, with non-ASL gesture as a baseline condition.

24

Data acquisition and fixed effects analysis

Subtraction paradigm was used to compare differential activation during processing of telic vs. atelic predicates.

Fixed effects analysis of the pilot data from 5 subjects (p<.001, uncorrected for multiple comparisons) demonstrates activation clusters in Broca’s area (BA 44/45, cluster size 15 voxels), and V5/MT+, cluster size 5 voxels.

25

Interpreting the empirical data

• experiments demonstrate semantics/grammar interaction in spoken and signed languages

• syntax of human languages cross-modally is grounded in what can be construed as biological perception.

The way events are perceived and conceptualized is explicitly coded in syntax-semantics interface.

26

References

Bornkessel, I., & Schlesewsky, M. (2006). The Extended Argument Dependency Model: A Neurocognitive Approach to Sentence Comprehension Across Languages. Psychological Review, 113(4), 787-821.

Brentari, D. (1998). Prosodic Model of ASL. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Capek, C.M., Bavelier, D., Corina, D., Newman, A.J., Jezzard, P., & Neville, H.J., 2004. The cortical organization of audio-visual sentence comprehension: An fMRI study at 4 Tesla. Cognitive Brain Research, 20, 111-119.

Corina, D.P., San Jose-Robertson, L., Guillemin, A., High, J., & Braun, A. 2003. Language lateralization in a bimanual language. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15, 718-730.

Corina, D.P., McBurney, S.L., Dodrill, C., Hinshaw, K., Brinkley, J., & Ojemann, G. 1999. Functional roles of Broca’s area and supramarginal gyrus: Evigence from cortical stimulation mapping in a deaf signer. NeuroImage, 10, 570-581.

Emmorey, K. 2002. Language, cognition, and the brain: Insights from sign language research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.

Emmorey, K., Grabowki, T., 2004. Neural organization for sign versus speech production. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience Supplement, F69, 205.

Emmorey, K., Herzig, M., 2003. Categorical versus gradient properties of classifier constructions in ASL. In K. Emmorey (Ed)., Perspectivees on classifier constructions in sign languages. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.

Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 178-210.

Frisch, S., & Schlesewsky, M. (2001). The N400 indicates problems of thematic hierarchising. Neuroreport, 12, 3391-3394.

Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review(99), 122-149.

Just, M. A., Carpenter, P. A., Keller, T. A., Eddy, W.F., & Thulborn, K.R. (1996). Brain Activation Modulated by Sentence Comprehension. Science, 274(5284), 114-116.

Hagoort, P. (2005). On Broca, brain, and binding: a new framework. Trends in Cog. Sci. 9, 416–423.

Hopf, J., Bayer, J., Bader, M., & Meng, M. (1998). Event-Related Brain Potentials and Case Information in Syntactic Amgibuities. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 10(2), 264-280.

Kaan, E., & Swaab, T.Y. (2003). Repair, revision, and complexity in syntactic analysis: an electrophysiological differentiation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15(1), 98-110.

Kaan, E., Wijnen, F., & Swaab, T.Y. (2004). Gapping: Electrophysiological evidence for immediate processing of “missing” verbs in sentence comprehension. Brain and Language, 89, 584-592.

King, J., & Kutas, M. (1995). Who did what and when? Using word- and causal- level ERPs to monitor working memory usage in reading. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 7(3), 376-395.

Levänen, S., Uutela, K., Salenius, S., & Hari, R. 2001. Cortical representation of sign lanugage: Comparison of deaf signers and hearing non-signers. Cerebral Cortex, 11, 506-512.

Neville, H., Bavelier, D., Corina, D., Rauschecker, J., Kami, A., Lalwani, A., et al. 1998. Cerebral organization for language in deaf and hearing subjects: Biological constraints and effects of experience. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA, 95, 922-929.

Malaia, E., Borneman, J., Wilbur, R.B. (2008) Analysis of ASL motion capture data towards identification of verb type. Symposium on semantics in systems for text processing, Venice, Italy, September 22-24.

Malaia, E., Wilbur, R., Weber-Fox, C. (accepted) Effect of telicity on syntax-semantics integration in sentence processing: ERP evidence. Brain and Language

O'Bryan, E. (2003). Event Structure in Language Comprehension. Unpublished manuscript, University of Arizona.

Osterhout, L., Holcomb, P. J., & Swinney, D. A. (1994). Brain potentials elicited by garden-path sentences: Evidence of the application of verb information during parsing. . Journal of Experiment Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 20, 786-803.

Pustejovsky, J. (1991). The syntax of event structure. Cognition, 41(1-3): 47-81.

Ramchand, G. (2008). Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: A First Phase Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rathmann, C. (2005).Event Structure in ASL. Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas-Austin.

Sanz, M. (2000). Events and predication. A new approach to syntactic processing in English and Spanish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Seegmiller, M., Ingraffea, K., & Townsend D. (2003). Role of telicity in sentence comprehension. Presentation at the “It’s About Time” workshop on Tense, Aspect, Modality, and Events. Michigan State University, Lansing.

Streb, J., Henninghausen, E., & Rösler, F. (2004). Different Anaphoric Experssions are Investigated by Event-Related Brain Potentials. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 33(3), 175-201.

Vendler, Z. (1967). Linguistics in Philosophy, Cornell University Press, New York.

Van Valin (2007) Some universals of verb semantics. In Linguistic Universals, Mairal, R., Gil, J. eds. Cambridge University Press.

Weber-Fox, C., & Neville, H. J. (2001). Sensitive periods differentiate processing of open- and closed-class words: An ERP study of bilinguals. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 44(6), 1338-1353.

Yamada, Y., Neville, H.J. (2007). An ERP study of syntactic processing in English and nonsense sentences. Brain Research, 1130(1), 167-180.

Wilbur, R. B. (2003). Representations of telicity in ASL. Chicago Linguistic Society 39 (1): 354-368.

27

THANK YOU

We are grateful to Robin Shay, Gabriel Masters, Nicoletta Adamo-Villani, Greg Tamer, Javier Gonzalez-Castillo, and Purdue and Indianapolis sign language community for their ongoing support of Purdue Sign Language Lab research.

This work was supported by NSF Research in Disabilities Education grant, and by NIH grant DC00524 to R.B. Wilbur.

Ramchand’s factorical typology of predicates

Class Syntactic status Arguments involved Examples

  [init, proc]    

I Transitive Initiator, Undergoer drive, push, paint

  Transitive Initiator, Path eat, read, paint

II Intransitive Initiatori, Undergoeri run

  [init, proc, res]    

III Transitive Initiator, Undergoeri, Resulteei throw, defuse

  Transitive Initiatori, Undergoeri, Result-Rheme enter

IV Intransitive Initiatori, Undergoeri, Resulteei arrive, jump

V Ditransitive Initiator, Undergoer, Resultee give, throw

  [proc]    

VI Intransitive Undergoer melt, roll, freeze

  [proc, res]    

VII Intransitive Undergoeri, Resulteei break, tear

  [init, proc, N]    

VIII N-conflation Initiatori, Undergoeri dance, sleep

  [init, proc, A]    

IX A-conflation Undergoer dry, clear