Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T19:27:52.822Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Grammatical category influences lateralized imagery for sentences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2017

SOFIA STROUSTRUP  and
MIKKEL WALLENTIN
SOFIA STROUSTRUP
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, Cognitive Science, and Semiotics, Aarhus University, Denmark
MIKKEL WALLENTIN*
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, Cognitive Science, and Semiotics, Aarhus University, Denmark, and Center of Functionally Integrative Neuroscience, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark
*
†Address for correspondence: Mikkel Wallentin, Center of Functionally Integrative Neuroscience, Aarhus University Hospital, Building 10-G-5, Nørrebrogade, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark. phone: +45-78464380; e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Natural language syntax has previously been thought to reflect abstract processing rules independent of meaning construction. However, grammatical categories may serve a functional role by allocating attention towards recurrent topics in discourse. Here, we show that listeners incorporate grammatical category into imagery when producing stick figure drawings from heard sentences, supporting the latter view. Participants listened to sentences with transitive verbs that independently varied whether a male or a female character (1) was mentioned first, (2) was the agent or recipient of an action, and (3) was the grammatical subject or object of the sentence. Replicating previous findings, we show that the first named character as well as the agent of the sentence tends to be drawn to the left in the image, probably reflecting left-to-right reading direction. But we also find that the grammatical subject of the sentence has a propensity to be drawn to the left of the object. We interpret this to suggest that grammatical category carries discursive meaning as an attention allocator. Our findings also highlight how language influences processes hitherto thought to be non-linguistic.

Keywords

imagerylateralizationword-orderagencygrammarsyntaxreading direction
Type
Article
Information
Language and Cognition , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , June 2018 , pp. 193 - 207
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © UK Cognitive Linguistics Association 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

No authors have competing interests or conflict of interests to declare. We wish to thank students and staff from Stenhus Gymnasium for their cooperation, especially Peter Fink for his help with coordinating testing. We also wish to thank Harald Wallentin Højholt and Gorm Wallentin Højholt for their help with data coding, and Anders Munch for helping with data collection and initial analyses.

References

references

Avrutin, S. (2006). Weak syntax. In Grodzinsky, Y. & Amunts, K. (Eds.), Broca’s region (pp. 49–62). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645.Google Scholar
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. M., & Walker, S. C. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1–48.Google Scholar
Ben-Shachar, M., Palti, D., & Grodzinsky, Y. (2004). Neural correlates of syntactic movement: converging evidence from two fMRI experiments. NeuroImage, 21, 1320–1336.Google Scholar
Braine, L. G., Schauble, L., Kugelmass, S., & Winter, A. (1993). Representation of depth by children: spatial strategies and lateral biases. Developmental Psychology, 29, 466–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braswell, G. S., & Rosengren, K. S. (2002). The role of handedness in graphic production: interactions between biomechanical and cognitive factors in drawing development. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 20, 581–599.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. (1994). Discourse, consciousness, and time. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chatterjee, A. (2001). Language and space: some interactions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 55–61.Google Scholar
Chatterjee, A., Southwood, M. H., & Basilico, D. (1999). Verbs, events and spatial representations. Neuropsychologia, 37, 395–402.Google Scholar
Chokron, S., & De Agostini, M. (2000). Reading habits influence aesthetic preference. Cognitive Brain Research, 10, 45–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chomsky, N. (2002). Syntactic structures, 2nd ed. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. (1966). The prediction of recall patterns in simple active sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 5, 99–106.Google Scholar
Coventry, K. R., Griffiths, D., & Hamilton, C. J. (2014). Spatial demonstratives and perceptual space: describing and remembering object location. Cognitive Psychology, 69, 46–70.Google Scholar
Croft, W., & Cruse, A. D. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dean, A., & Carra, L. (1989). Fundamentals of play directing, 5th ed. Long Grove: Waveland Press.Google Scholar
Delong, K. A., Troyer, M., & Kutas, M. (2014). Pre-processing in sentence comprehension: sensitivity to likely upcoming meaning and structure. Language and Linguistics Compass, 8, 631–645.Google Scholar
Dobel, C., Diesendruck, G., & Bölte, J. (2007). How writing system and age influence spatial representations of actions: a developmental, cross-linguistic study. Psychological Science: A Journal of the American Psychological Society / APS, 18, 487–491.Google Scholar
Egizii, M., Denny, J., Neuendord, K. A., Skalski, P. D., & Campbell, R. (2012). Which way did he go? Directionality of film character and camera movement and subsequent spectator interpretation. Paper presented at The International Communication Association conference, Phoenix, AZ.Google Scholar
Frazier, L. (1999). On sentence interpretation. Dordrecht: Springer Science+Business Media.Google Scholar
Fritz, J. B., Elhilali, M., David, S. V., & Shamma, S. A. (2007). Auditory attention – focusing the searchlight on sound. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 17, 437–455.Google Scholar
Fuhrman, O., & Boroditsky, L. (2010). Cross-cultural differences in mental representations of time: evidence from an implicit nonlinguistic task. Cognitive Science, 34, 1430–1451.Google Scholar
Gernsbacher, M. A., & Hargreaves, D. J. (1988). Accessing sentence participants: the advantage of first mention. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 699–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gernsbacher, M. A., Hargreaves, D. J., & Beeman, M. (1989). Building and accessing clausal representations: the advantage of first mention versus the advantage of clause recency. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 735–755.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1984). Syntax: a functional-typological introduction, Vol. 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gleitman, L. R., January, D., Nappa, R., & Trueswell, J. C. (2007). On the give and take between event apprehension and utterance formulation. Journal of Memory and Language, 57, 544–569.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gordon, P. C., Grosz, B. J., & Gilliom, L. A. (1993). Pronouns, names, and the centering of attention in discourse. Cognitive Science, 17, 311–347.Google Scholar
Gudde, H. B., Coventry, K. R., & Engelhardt, P. E. (2016). Language and memory for object location. Cognition, 153, 99–107.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, M. I. M. (2004). An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 3rd ed. London: Hodder Arnold.Google Scholar
Kranjec, A., Lehet, M., Bromberger, B., & Chatterjee, A. (2010). A sinister bias for calling fouls in soccer. PLoS ONE, 5, e11667.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kristensen, L. B. (2013). Context, you need: experimental approaches to information structure processing. Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Kristensen, L. B., Engberg-Pedersen, E., Nielsen, A. H., & Wallentin, M. (2013). The influence of context on word order processing – an fMRI study. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 26, 73–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kristensen, L. B., Engberg-Pedersen, E., & Poulsen, M. (2014a). Context improves comprehension of fronted objects. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 43, 125–140.Google Scholar
Kristensen, L. B., Engberg-Pedersen, E., & Wallentin, M. (2014b). Context predicts word order processing in Broca’s region. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 26, 2762–2777.Google Scholar
Kristensen, L. B., & Wallentin, M. (2015). Putting Broca’s region into context – fMRI evidence for a role in predictive language processing. In Willems, R. (Ed.), Towards a cognitive neuroscience of natural language use (pp. 160–181). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kuperberg, G. R., & Jaeger, T. F. (2015). What do we mean by prediction in language comprehension? Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31, 32–59.Google Scholar
Laanemets, A. (2013). The passive voice in spoken and written Danish, Norwegian and Swedish: a comparative corpus-based study. Languages in Contrast, 13, 67–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2003). Space in language and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Maass, A., Pagani, D., & Berta, E. (2007). How beautiful is the goal and how violent is the fistfight? Spatial bias in the interpretation of human behavior. Social Cognition, 25, 833–852.Google Scholar
Maass, A., & Russo, A. (2003). Directional bias in the mental representation of spatial events. Psychological Science, 14(4), 296–301.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Makuuchi, M., Grodzinsky, Y., Amunts, K., Santi, A., & Friederici, A. D. (2013). Processing noncanonical sentences in Broca’s region: reflections of movement distance and type. Cerebral Cortex, 23, 694–702.Google Scholar
Myachykov, A., Ellis, R., Cangelosi, A., & Fischer, M. H. (2013). Visual and linguistic cues to graspable objects. Experimental Brain Research / Experimentelle Hirnforschung Expérimentation cérébrale, 229, 545–559.Google Scholar
Myachykov, A., & Garrod, S. (2008). Perception and word order in Russian and Finnish sentence production. In Ramm, W. & Fabricius-Hansen, C. (Eds.), Linearisation and Segmentation in Discourse. Multidisciplinary Approaches to Discourse, 2008 (MAD 08), Feb 20–23 2008 (pp. 87–98). Lysebu, Oslo.Google Scholar
Myachykov, A., Garrod, S., & Scheepers, C. (2012). Determinants of structural choice in visually situated sentence production. Acta Psychologica, 141, 304–315.Google Scholar
Myachykov, A., & Tomlin, R. (2008). Perceptual priming and structural choice in Russian sentence production. Journal of Cognitive Science, 9, 31–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myachykov, A., Tomlin, R. S., & Posner, M. I. (2005). Attention and empirical studies of grammar. Linguistic Review, 22(2/4), 347–364.Google Scholar
O’Leary, B. (2003). Hollywood camera movements and the films of Howard Hawks: a Functional Semiotic approach. New Review of Film and Television Studies, 1, 7–30.Google Scholar
Orne, M. T. (1969). Demand characteristics and the concept of quasi-controls. In Rosenthal, R. & Rosnow, R. (Eds.), Artifact in behavioral research (pp. 143–179). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Parmentier, F. B. R., Turner, J., & Perez, L. (2014). A dual contribution to the involuntary semantic processing of unexpected spoken words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 38–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Román, A., El Fathi, A., & Santiago, J. (2013). Spatial biases in understanding descriptions of static scenes: the role of reading and writing direction. Memory & Cognition, 41, 588–599.Google Scholar
Salt, B. (2005). A note on ‘Hollywood camera movements and the films of Howard Hawks: a Functional Semiotic approach’ by Brian O’Leary. New Review of Film and Television Studies, 3, 101–103.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (2007). Atttention phenomena. In Geeraerts, D. & Cuyckens, H. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 264–293). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (2011). Cognitive semantics: an overview. In Maienborn, C., von Heusinger, K., & Portner, P. (Eds.), Semantics: an international handbook of natural language meaning (Vol. 1, pp. 622–642): Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Thompson, C. K., den Ouden, D.-B., Bonakdarpour, B., Garibaldi, K., & Parrish, T. B. (2010). Neural plasticity and treatment-induced recovery of sentence processing in agrammatism. Neuropsychologia, 48, 3211–3227.Google Scholar
Thomsen, D. B., & Kristensen, L. B. (2015). Semantic role assignment in Danish children and adults. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia, 46, 159–198.Google Scholar
Tomlin, R. S. (1995). Focal attention, voice, and word order. In Downing, P. & Noonan, M. (Eds.), Word order in discourse (pp. 517–552). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.Google Scholar
Tversky, B., & Lee, P. (1998). How space structures language. In Freksa, C., Habel, C., & Wender, K.F. (Eds.), Spatial Cognition: an interdisciplinary approach to representing and processing spatial knowledge (pp. 157–175). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tylén, K., Weed, E., Wallentin, M., Roepstorff, A., & Frith, C. D. (2010). Language as a tool for interacting minds. Mind & Language, 25, 3–29.Google Scholar
Vaid, J., Rhodes, R., Tosun, S., & Eslami, Z. (2011). Script directionality affects depiction of depth in representational drawings. Social Psychology, 42, 241–248.Google Scholar
Wallentin, M., Weed, E., Østergaard, L., Mouridsen, K., & Roepstorff, A. (2008). Accessing the mental space – spatial working memory processes for language and vision overlap in precuneus. Human Brain Mapping, 29, 524–532.Google Scholar
Zwaan, R. A., & Pecher, D. (2012). Revisiting mental simulation in language comprehension: six replication attempts. PLoS ONE, 7, e51382.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zwaan, R. A., Stanfield, R. A., & Yaxley, R. H. (2002). Language comprehenders mentally represent the shapes of objects. Psychological Science, 13, 168–171.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Stroustrup and Wallentin supplementary material

Stroustrup and Wallentin supplementary material 1

Download Stroustrup and Wallentin supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 220.6 KB