Is there a domain-general cognitive structuring system? Evidence from structural priming across music, math, action descriptions, and language

Cavey, Joris Van de; Hartsuiker, Robert J.

doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2015.09.013

Cited by 66 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As noted above, the currently most elaborated shared-syntax account (Hartsuiker et al, 2004) (Scheepers et al, 2011;Van De Cavey & Hartsuiker, 2016). Whatever the precise characterization of RC-attachment priming, we argue that the relevant procedures are shared across languages.…”

Section: The Locus Of Primingmentioning

confidence: 47%

Cross-linguistic structural priming in multilinguals: Further evidence for shared syntax

Hartsuiker

Beerts

Desmet

et al. 2016

Journal of Memory and Language

Self Cite

123

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The experiments tested whether structural priming within a language differs from priming between languages and whether priming between a first and second language differs from priming between two different second languages.Experiment 1 tested priming of relative clause attachment from Dutch (the subjects' first language), French, or English (two second languages) to Dutch. Experiments 2 and 3 were similar but had respectively French and English as the target language. Experiment 4 tested dative priming from Dutch, English, and German (another second language) to English. Structural priming was always as strong within-as between-languages and priming between a first and a second language was always as strong as priming between two second languages. These findings support accounts that assume syntax is shared across languages.Keywords: Bilingualism; Multilingualism; Structural Priming; Sentence Production multilingual cross-linguistic priming 3 Worldwide it is the rule rather than the exception that people speak more than one language (Graddol, 2004;Grosjean, 1992); in some parts of the world most people even speak more than two languages. For instance, most people from the region of Flanders, Belgium, have Dutch as their first language (L1), but also know French, English and sometimes German as a second language (L2) 1 , which they typically started to learn towards the end of primary school, at the beginning of secondary school, and in the last years of secondary school respectively. Many studies on bilingualism have asked whether there are influences of L1 on processing an L2 (e.g., Thierry & Wu, 2007) or vice versa (e.g., Van Assche, Drieghe, Duyck, & Hartsuiker, 2009). Fewer studies have considered cross-language influences in speakers of more than two languages. However, multilingualism offers the possibility of comparing cross-linguistic influences between a first and second language with influences between two different second languages (see Lemhöfer, Dijkstra, & Michel, 2004;Van Hell & Dijkstra, 2002 for such studies in the lexical domain). This article will present such a comparison in the domain of sentence production in order to arbitrate between theories that assume syntactic representations are shared or separate across a multilingual's languages. Although most cognitive-psychological studies on multilingualism have focused on the representation or processing of words, there is an increasing interest in research on syntactic processes in bilingual sentence production (e.g., Hartsuiker, Pickering, & Veltkamp, 2004;Kootstra, Van Hell, & Dijkstra, 2010;Loebell & Bock, 2003; Meyer & Fox Tree, 2003). Most of these studies use the structural priming paradigm, which is based on the phenomenon that the choice out of two alternative syntactic structures (e.g., an active instead of a passive multilingual cross-linguistic priming 4 sentence) is influenced by having recently processed a prime sentence with that specific structure (Bock, 1986). In a series of seminal studies, Bock and colleagues ruled out that st...

show abstract

Section: The Locus Of Primingmentioning

confidence: 47%

Cross-linguistic structural priming in multilinguals: Further evidence for shared syntax

Hartsuiker

Beerts

Desmet

et al. 2016

Journal of Memory and Language

Self Cite

123

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, ''emergent from language processes'' need not be ''domain-specific.'' Indeed, there has been new interest in investigating how language use is supported by domain-general processes of attention and episodic memory (Nozari et al, 2016;Van de Cavey and Hartsuiker, 2016;Hepner and Nozari, 2019), and interest in how distinct brain networks must coordinate to accomplish language comprehension and other complex cognitive processes (Fedorenko et al, 2011;Fedorenko, 2014). Close ties with attention have long been a component of emergent models (e.g., Cowan, 1993), and researchers are now considering the interrelationships between language and attention mechanisms with respect to VWM (Majerus, 2019).…”

Section: Implications For Attention Task Subcomponents and Domain Gmentioning

confidence: 99%

Verbal Working Memory as Emergent from Language Comprehension and Production

Schwering

MacDonald

2020

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article reviews current models of verbal working memory and considers the role of language comprehension and long-term memory in the ability to maintain and order verbal information for short periods of time. While all models of verbal working memory posit some interaction with long-term memory, few have considered the character of these long-term representations or how they might affect performance on verbal working memory tasks. Similarly, few models have considered how comprehension processes and production processes might affect performance in verbal working memory tasks. Modern theories of comprehension emphasize that people learn a vast web of correlated information about the language and the world and must activate that information from long-term memory to cope with the demands of language input. To date, there has been little consideration in theories of verbal working memory for how this rich input from comprehension would affect the nature of temporary memory. There has also been relatively little attention to the degree to which language production processes naturally manage serial order of verbal information. The authors argue for an emergent model of verbal working memory supported by a rich, distributed long-term memory for language. On this view, comprehension processes provide encoding in verbal working memory tasks, and production processes maintenance, serial ordering, and recall. Moreover, the computational capacity to maintain and order information varies with language experience. Implications for theories of working memory, comprehension, and production are considered.

show abstract

“…The domain generality of the CCN is in line with a variety of neuroimaging studies examining cognitive control across domains. Frontal and parietal regions of the CCN are broadly engaged in a wide range of tasks, including perception, response selection, executive control, working memory, episodic memory, mental arithmetic, language comprehension, language production, and problem solving (Duncan, ; Duncan & Owen, ; Fedorenko, ; Fedorenko, Duncan, & Kanwisher, ; Van de Cavey & Hartsuiker, ). The commonly activated regions have been theorized as being part of the multiple‐demand system, supporting diverse cognitive tasks and associated with general fluid intelligence (Duncan, ; Duncan, Chylinski, Mitchell, & Bhandari, ; Duncan et al, ; Woolgar, Duncan, Manes, & Fedorenko, ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The functional anatomy of cognitive control: A domain‐general brain network for uncertainty processing

Chen

Spagna

et al. 2019

J of Comparative Neurology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cognitive control is the coordination of mental operations under conditions of uncertainty in accordance with goal‐directed behaviors, and plays a key role in the domains of executive control, working memory, and decision‐making. Although there is emerging evidence of common involvement of the cognitive control network (CCN) of the brain in these domains, this network has mostly been linked to the processing of conflict, which is just one case of an increase in uncertainty. Here, we conducted an activation‐likelihood‐estimation‐based large‐scale meta‐analysis of 289 functional magnetic resonance imaging studies in the three domains to examine the common involvement of the CCN in uncertainty processing by contrasting the high‐uncertainty versus low‐uncertainty conditions. We found a general association between increase in uncertainty and an activation increase in regions of the CCN, including the frontoparietal network (comprising the frontal eye fields, the areas near and along the intraparietal sulcus, and the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex), the cingulo‐opercular network (including the anterior cingulate cortex extending to the supplementary motor area, and the anterior insular cortex), and a subcortical structure (the striatum). These results demonstrate that the CCN is a domain‐general construct underlying uncertainty processing to support goal‐directed behaviors.

show abstract

Is there a domain-general cognitive structuring system? Evidence from structural priming across music, math, action descriptions, and language

Cited by 66 publications

References 38 publications

Cross-linguistic structural priming in multilinguals: Further evidence for shared syntax

Cross-linguistic structural priming in multilinguals: Further evidence for shared syntax

Verbal Working Memory as Emergent from Language Comprehension and Production

The functional anatomy of cognitive control: A domain‐general brain network for uncertainty processing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About