Neural Correlates of Processing Syntax in Music and ... - PubMan
Neural Correlates of Processing Syntax in Music and ... - PubMan
Neural Correlates of Processing Syntax in Music and ... - PubMan
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Language Perception 64<br />
Complex syntax <strong>in</strong>volves recursion. 11 Recursion is proposed by Hauser, Chomsky <strong>and</strong><br />
Fitch (2002) as key component <strong>of</strong> human language. They propose, while other prerequisites<br />
may be shared with other animals, no other species has a comparable capacity to<br />
recomb<strong>in</strong>e mean<strong>in</strong>gful units <strong>in</strong>to an unlimited variety <strong>of</strong> larger structures: While f<strong>in</strong>itestate<br />
grammars can be learned by primates, phrase-structure grammars can not (Fitch &<br />
Hauser, 2004). 11<br />
In l<strong>in</strong>guistics, there are two ma<strong>in</strong> accounts to theorize about syntactic pars<strong>in</strong>g: two-stage<br />
accounts <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>teractive accounts. Two-stage accounts assume <strong>in</strong>itial process<strong>in</strong>g (usually<br />
modular) <strong>and</strong> subsequent process<strong>in</strong>g (usually not modular), e.g., the <strong>in</strong>fluential<br />
“Garden-Path” theory established by Frazier (cf. Frazier, 1987). A first analysis is chosen<br />
on the basis <strong>of</strong> certa<strong>in</strong> assumptions (e.g., “M<strong>in</strong>imal Attachment”). Alternative twostage<br />
accounts propose that the processor <strong>in</strong>itially adopts an analysis <strong>in</strong> which a thematic<br />
role can be assigned to a new constituent (e.g., Abney, 1989; Pritchett, 1992).<br />
Interactive accounts assume that all potentially relevant sources <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>formation are immediately<br />
used <strong>and</strong> affects further process<strong>in</strong>g (e.g., Bates & MacWh<strong>in</strong>ney, 1989; Taraban<br />
& McClell<strong>and</strong>, 1988; Tyler & Marslen-Wilson, 1977). They generally hypothesize<br />
that the processor activates all possible sentence analyses <strong>in</strong> parallel <strong>and</strong> these which<br />
receive support stay activated. Thus, process<strong>in</strong>g is easy when only one analysis receives<br />
support while process<strong>in</strong>g difficulties occur when two or more analyses receive equal<br />
support. For a more <strong>in</strong>-depth discussion <strong>of</strong> these theories, see e.g., Picker<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> van<br />
Gompel (2006).<br />
It is <strong>of</strong>ten assumed that work<strong>in</strong>g memory plays an important role <strong>in</strong> sentence process<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
Memory limitations may affect the ease with which sentences are processed. For<br />
<strong>in</strong>stance, Gibson (1998) proposed the syntactic locality prediction theory which claims<br />
that two factors – storage costs <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>tegration costs – contribute to sentence complexity<br />
because both draw on the same memory resources. Storage costs occur with a dependency<br />
between two syntactic elements when one element has to be stored <strong>in</strong> memory<br />
before it can be <strong>in</strong>tegrated with a later element. Thus, both costs <strong>in</strong>crease as more new<br />
discourse referents have to been processed.<br />
11<br />
In general, two types <strong>of</strong> grammar rules can be dist<strong>in</strong>guished: a f<strong>in</strong>ite-state grammar <strong>in</strong>volves the process<strong>in</strong>g<br />
<strong>of</strong> a simple, local rule (e.g., (AB) n generat<strong>in</strong>g local transitions between As <strong>and</strong> Bs, i.e., ABABAB),<br />
the phrase structure grammar the process<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> a complex, hierarchical rule (e.g., A n B n , i.e. AAABBB).<br />
Phrase-structure grammar is based on recursion. It denotes an embedd<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> sentences <strong>in</strong> sentences. This<br />
enables an unlimited extension <strong>of</strong> a language. The l<strong>in</strong>guistic doctr<strong>in</strong>e that recursion is the only trait which<br />
differentiates human <strong>and</strong> animal communication <strong>and</strong> is currently under <strong>in</strong>tense debate.