Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T13:44:05.082Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Don't forget the neurobiology: An experimental approach to linguistic representation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 November 2017

Peter Hagoort
Peter Hagoort*
Affiliation:
Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, 6500 HB Nijmegen, Netherlands. peter.hagoort@donders.ru.nlwww.mpi.nl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Acceptability judgments are no longer acceptable as the holy grail for testing the nature of linguistic representations. Experimental and quantitative methods should be used to test theoretical claims in psycholinguistics. These methods should include not only behavior, but also the more recent possibilities to probe the neural codes for language-relevant representations.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 40 , 2017 , e292
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 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.)

References

Almeida, D. (2010) “Weak quantitative standards in linguistics research? The debate between Gibson/Fedorenko & Sprouse/Almeida.” Talking Brains blog, moderated by G. Hickok and D. Poeppel, June 14, 2010. Available at: http://www.talkingbrains.org/2010/06/weak-quantitative-standards-in.html.Google Scholar
Culicover, P. W. & Jackendoff, R. (2005) Simpler syntax, vol. 10. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Groot, A. & Hagoort, P., eds. (in press) Research methods in psycholinguistics and the neurobiology of language: A practical guide. Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gibson, T. & Fedorenko, E. (2010) Weak quantitative standards in linguistics research. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 14(6):233–34.Google ScholarPubMed
Grill-Spector, K., Henson, R. & Martin, A. (2006) Repetition and the brain: Neural models of stimulus-specific effects. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10(1):14–23.Google ScholarPubMed
Hagoort, P. (2005) On Broca, brain, and binding: A new framework. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9:416–23.Google Scholar
Hagoort, P. (2014) Nodes and networks in the neural architecture for language: Broca's region and beyond. Current Opinion in Neurobiology 28:136–41. doi:10.1016/j.conb.2014.07.013.Google Scholar
Hagoort, P. & Indefrey, P. (2014) The neurobiology of language beyond single words. Annual Review of Neuroscience 37(1):347–62. doi:10.1146/annurev-neuro-071013-013847.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (2002) Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (in press) Mental representations for language. In: Human language: From genes and brains to behavior, ed. Hagoort, P.. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kriegeskorte, N., Mur, M. & Bandettini, P. (2008) Representational similarity analysis – connecting the branches of systems neuroscience. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience 2:4–10.Google ScholarPubMed
Menenti, L., Gierhan, S. M. E., Segaert, K. & Hagoort, P. (2011) Shared language: Overlap and segregation of the neuronal infrastructure for speaking and listening revealed by functional MRI. Psychological Science 22(9):1173–82. doi:10.1177/0956797611418347.Google Scholar
Segaert, K., Menenti, L., Weber, K., Petersson, K. M. & Hagoort, P. (2012) Shared syntax in language production and language comprehension: An fMRI study. Cerebral Cortex 22(7):1662–70. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhr249.Google Scholar