Language processing is incremental. As language signals-for example, words in a sentence-unfold, humans predict and activate likely upcoming input to facilitate comprehension. Prediction not only accelerates understanding but also prompts reassessment in the case of prediction error, fostering learning and refining comprehension skills. Therefore, it is paramount to understand what happens when linguistic predictions are violated-for example, when a sentence ends in an unpredicted word. One theory, which we test here, is that the originally predicted word is actively inhibited after semantic violations. Furthermore, we tested whether this purported lexical inhibition process is achieved by a domain-general mechanism-that is, one that also inhibits other processes (e.g., movement). We combined a semantic violation task, in which highly constrained sentences primed specific words but sometimes continued otherwise, with a motoric stop-signal task. Across two experiments, semantic violations significantly impaired simultaneous action-stopping. This implies that lexical and motor inhibition share the same process. In support of this view, multivariate decoding of electroencephalographic recordings showed early overlap in neural processing between action-stopping (motor inhibition) and semantic violations (lexical inhibition). Moreover, a known signature of motor inhibition (the stop-signal P3) was reduced after this initial overlap period, further suggesting the presence of a bottleneck due to shared processing. These findings show that semantic violations trigger inhibitory processing and suggest that this lexical inhibition recruits a domain-general inhibitory control mechanism. This provides a new perspective on long-standing debates in psycholinguistics, extends the range of a well-characterized cognitive control mechanism into the linguistic domain, and offers support for recent neurobiological models of domain-general inhibitory control. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xge0001642 | DOI Listing |
Cognition
December 2024
Max Plank Institute for Psycholinguistics, Wundtlaan 1, 6525 XD Nijmegen, The Netherlands; Radboud University Nijmegen, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, 6525 EN Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Face-to-face communication is not only about 'what' is said but also 'how' it is said, both in speech and bodily signals. Beat gestures are rhythmic hand movements that typically accompany prosodic prominence in conversation. Yet, it is still unclear how beat gestures influence language comprehension.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFSci Rep
November 2024
School of Languages and Cultures, Purdue University, West Lafayette, 47907, USA.
In human speakers' daily conversations, what we do not say matters. We not only compute the literal semantics but also go beyond and draw inferences from what we could have said but chose not to. How well is this pragmatic reasoning process represented in pre-trained large language models (LLM)? In this study, we attempt to address this question through the lens of manner implicature, a pragmatic inference triggered by a violation of the Grice manner maxim.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFJ Neurosci
November 2024
Cognitive Neuroscience Laboratory - Australian Research Centre for Interactive and Virtual Environments, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.
Acta Psychol (Amst)
November 2024
Department of German Studies and Linguistics, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany; Berlin School of Mind and Brain, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany; Einstein Center for Neurosciences Berlin, Charité, Berlin, Germany.
In the present study, we used eye-tracking to investigate formality-register and morphosyntactic congruence during sentence reading. While research frequently covers participants' processing of lexical, (morpho-)syntactic, or semantic knowledge (e.g.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFIn principle, functional neuroimaging provides uniquely informative data in addressing linguistic questions, because it can indicate distinct processes that are not apparent from behavioral data alone. This could involve adjudicating the source of unacceptability via the different patterns of elicited brain responses to different ungrammatical sentence types. However, it is difficult to interpret brain activations to syntactic violations.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFEnter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!