Cognitive processing, language typology, and variation

Sinnemäki, Kaius

doi:10.1002/wcs.1294

Cited by 8 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 69 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A bias for aligned structures is also found in phylogenetic models of linguistic evolution [3]: After controlling for contingencies of history (such as language contact and language shifts), languages are universally more likely to develop and maintain aligned expressions than the opposite. Such a correlation of neural processing and evolutionary developments might stem from a tight interlacing of comprehension and production processes [17] or from shared neural underpinnings [18,19], and would be consistent with other findings on how the brain's processing constraints shape the form of languages [20][21][22][23][24].…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 85%

“…Our results demonstrate how new insights on the relationship between language production and the simplicity and prevalence of specific language structures critically rely on evidence from neural processes that underlie different syntactic variants in the earliest stages of sentence planning. This opens new avenues for research on the neural processes in language planning and speech production that go beyond the level of individual words [62,99,100] and beyond the small set of languages that have dominated the field so far [22,71,74,[101][102][103].…”

Section: Plos Biologymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Neural signatures of syntactic variation in speech planning

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Planning to speak is a challenge for the brain, and the challenge varies between and within languages. Yet, little is known about how neural processes react to these variable challenges beyond the planning of individual words. Here, we examine how fundamental differences in syntax shape the time course of sentence planning. Most languages treat alike (i.e., align with each other) the 2 uses of a word like “gardener” in “the gardener crouched” and in “the gardener planted trees.” A minority keeps these formally distinct by adding special marking in 1 case, and some languages display both aligned and nonaligned expressions. Exploiting such a contrast in Hindi, we used electroencephalography (EEG) and eye tracking to suggest that this difference is associated with distinct patterns of neural processing and gaze behavior during early planning stages, preceding phonological word form preparation. Planning sentences with aligned expressions induces larger synchronization in the theta frequency band, suggesting higher working memory engagement, and more visual attention to agents than planning nonaligned sentences, suggesting delayed commitment to the relational details of the event. Furthermore, plain, unmarked expressions are associated with larger desynchronization in the alpha band than expressions with special markers, suggesting more engagement in information processing to keep overlapping structures distinct during planning. Our findings contrast with the observation that the form of aligned expressions is simpler, and they suggest that the global preference for alignment is driven not by its neurophysiological effect on sentence planning but by other sources, possibly by aspects of production flexibility and fluency or by sentence comprehension. This challenges current theories on how production and comprehension may affect the evolution and distribution of syntactic variants in the world’s languages.

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 85%

Section: Plos Biologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Neural signatures of syntactic variation in speech planning

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…from functional typologists, e.g. Haspelmath, 2006Haspelmath, , 2009Hawkins, 1994Hawkins, , 2004Hawkins, , 2007Hawkins, , 2014Sinnemäki, 2014, as well, more recently, from psycholinguistics and the cognitive sciences, e.g. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Choudhary, Witzlack-Makarevich, & Bickel, 2008;Christiansen & Chater, 2008;Jaeger & Tily, 2011;MacDonald, 2013;McDaniel, McKee, Cowart, & Garrett, 2015; see also Bever, 1970).…”

Section: Conclusion and Looking Forwardmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cross-linguistic psycholinguistics and its critical role in theory development: early beginnings and recent advances

Norcliffe

Harris

Jaeger

2015

Language, Cognition and Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent years have seen a small but growing body of psycholinguistic research focused on typologically diverse languages. This represents an important development for the field, where theorising is still largely guided by the often implicit assumption of universality. This paper introduces a special issue of Language, Cognition and Neuroscience devoted to the topic of cross-linguistic and field-based approaches to the study of psycholinguistics. The papers in this issue draw on data from a variety of genetically and areally divergent languages, to address questions in the production and comprehension of phonology, morphology, words, and sentences. To contextualise these studies, we provide an overview of the field of cross-linguistic psycholinguistics, from its early beginnings to the present day, highlighting instances where cross-linguistic data have significantly contributed to psycholinguistic theorising

show abstract

“…Recent research suggests that linguistic structures adapt to the sociocultural environment in which languages are spoken (Ladd et al, 2015 ). Since languages are acquired and used in different social contexts, those contexts may bias acquisition and usage: linguistic structures become adapted to these social niches and this, over time, may be reflected in typological distributions (Lupyan and Dale, 2010 ; Sinnemäki, 2014 ). Central ideas in this approach have been: Small communities with dense social networks, few adult learners, and a great deal of shared knowledge favor linguistic structures that are difficult for adults (e.g., irregularity in inflectional paradigms); Large communities with loose social networks, more adult learners, and less shared knowledge favor more regular and easier to learn linguistic structures (e.g., regularity in inflectional paradigms, transparency; Trudgill, 2011b ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Processing difficulties that language users face are one of the driving factors behind language change if, following a usage-based approach to language, we assume that preferences in language use become conventionalized over time (e.g., Sinnemäki, 2014 ). It has been recently suggested that the processing difficulties that adults face in learning and using an L2 may end up having an effect on the (evolution of the) grammar of the native speakers as well (see e.g., Lupyan and Dale 2010 ; Bentz and Winter 2013 ; and references there).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Language Structures May Adapt to the Sociolinguistic Environment, but It Matters What and How You Count: A Typological Study of Verbal and Nominal Complexity

Sinnemäki

Garbo

2018

Front. Psychol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article we evaluate claims that language structure adapts to sociolinguistic environment. We present the results of two typological case studies examining the effects of the number of native (=L1) speakers and the proportion of adult second language (=L2) learners on language structure. Data from more than 300 languages suggest that testing the effect of population size and proportion of adult L2 learners on features of verbal and nominal complexity produces conflicting results on different grammatical features. The results show that verbal inflectional synthesis adapts to the sociolinguistic environment but the number of genders does not. The results also suggest that modeling population size together with proportion of L2 improves model fit compared to modeling them independently of one another. We thus argue that surveying population size alone may be insufficient to detect possible adaptation of linguistic structure to the sociolinguistic environment. Rather, other features, such as proportion of L2 speakers, prestige and social network density, should be studied, and if demographic numeric data are used, they should not be used in isolation but rather in competition with other sociolinguistic features. We also suggest that not all types of language structures within a given grammatical domain are equally sensitive to the effect of sociolinguistic variables, and that more exploratory studies are needed before we can arrive at a reliable set of grammatical features that may be potentially most (and least) adaptive to social structures.

show abstract

Cognitive processing, language typology, and variation

Abstract: The author has declared no conflicts of interest for this article.

Cited by 8 publications

References 69 publications

Neural signatures of syntactic variation in speech planning

Neural signatures of syntactic variation in speech planning

Cross-linguistic psycholinguistics and its critical role in theory development: early beginnings and recent advances

Language Structures May Adapt to the Sociolinguistic Environment, but It Matters What and How You Count: A Typological Study of Verbal and Nominal Complexity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About