Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Cognitive Psychology Chapter 9a Language
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Cognitive Psychology Chapter 9a Language

1,602

Published on

0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,602
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
69
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Study Questions. • How has sentence ambiguity been used to study the psycholinguistics of grammar. • Describe the classical localization model of brain and language. How do different aphasias relate to the model. Give examples. 01/30/15 Oh freddled guntbuggly, thy micturations are to me As plurdled gabbleblothchits on a lugid bee Groop, I implore thee, my foonting turlingdromes And booptiously drangle me with crinkly bindlewurdles Or I will rend thee in the gobberwarts With my blurglecruncheon, see if I don’t Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy • Language » Articulatory Phonetics ◊ Top down processes » Syntax » Lexical and semantic factors ◊ Case Grammar » Neuropsychology of language ◊ Classical Localization Model » Neurophysiology of language
  • 2. Language • Articulatory Phonetics » Voicing
  • 3. PercentageIdentified 100 80 60 40 20 0 Voice-onset time (ms) 40 50 60 7010 20 30 Language • Is speech special? » Do we possess specialized neural mechanisms for perceiving speech? » Categorical perception ◊Voice onset-time and distinguishing /d/ from /t/
  • 4. Language • Articulatory Phonetics » Vowels ◊Positioning and part of tongue – Height High (/i/ beet) Med (/e/ bait) Low (/a/ pot) – Part Front (/I/ bit) Central (but) Back (/o/ boat)
  • 5. Language • The search for invariants » Distinctive features » Problems with a simple bottom-up approach ◊There are no periods of silence between phonemes –The speech spectrograph
  • 6. Language • The search for invariants
  • 7. Language • The search for invariants » Phonemic information is presented in parallel ◊Coarticulation ◊E.g. Cf. /M/ in “Tim” vs. “/M/ in “mad” » We perceive them as the same, but they are different » We perceive the same sound differently according to the context ◊E.g.: Writer vs. Rider ◊E.g.: Insert a silence between /s/ and /i/ --> “ski” Insert a silence between /s/ and /u/ --> “spew”
  • 8. Language • Top down processes » Phonemic restoration effect (Warren, 1970) ◊Their respective legi*latures ◊Found a *eel on the axle ◊Found a *eel on the shoe
  • 9. Language • Perceiving conversational speech » Two main problems: ◊There are no physical boundaries between words – Anna Mary candy lights since imp pulp lay things – ( An American delights in simple play things) ◊Speech is sloppy – He wants to kiss this Guy? – Misheard Lyrics (www.kissthisguy.com) – This was the best buy vs. She is a bad girl
  • 10. Language • Perceiving conversational speech
  • 11. Language W h a d’ a y a D oo w i n • Perceiving conversational speech
  • 12. Language • Top-down processes and speech perception » Phonemic perception ◊The McGurk Effect » Sentence comprenension ◊Miller & Isard (1963) – Participants shadow sentences: Grammatic: Bears steal honey from the hive. Semantically incorrect: Bears shoot honey on the highways. Ungrammatic: Across bears eyes honey the bill.
  • 13. Language • Top-down processes and speech perception ◊Miller & Isard (1963) –Results Gram. Nonsem. Nongram. No noise 89% 79% 56% Noise 63% 22% 3%
  • 14. Language • Syntax » Finite state grammar ◊E.g, Miller (1958). 0 1 3 2 0´Start Finish S N N X S G G X
  • 15. Language • Syntax » Finite state grammar ◊E.g, Miller (1958). Structured Random L1 L2 R1 R2 SSXG NNSG GNSX NXGS NNXSG NNSXG NSGXN GNXSG SXSXG SXXSG XGSSN SXNGG Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc.
  • 16. Language • Syntax » Finite state grammar ◊E.g, Miller (1958).
  • 17. Language • Syntax » Finite state grammar ◊Problems with finite state grammar – Linguistic competence – Judgements of grammaticity (Chomsky) e.g., Colourless green ideas sleep furiously (For words never paired together) – Judgements of agrammaticity (Miller and Selfridge) e.g., Was he went to the newspaper is in deep end. (For words often paired together) – Resolving/explaining ambiguity e.g., They are cooking apples.
  • 18. Language • Syntax » Phrase structure grammar » Constituent analysis The boy hit the ball Verb phrase (VP)Noun phrase (NP) NPDet. The Det. the Noun boy Verb hit Noun ball
  • 19. Sentence VPNP Verb NP Cop. Part. Noun Pronoun They flyingare planes Sentence VPNP They Pronoun Verb NP NounAdj flyingare planes Language • Syntax » Phrase structure grammar ◊Three types of sentences – Grammatical / meaningful: maps onto only one phrase structure. – Nongrammatical: cannot be mapped onto a phrase structure – Grammatical / ambiguous: maps onto more than one phrase structure. e.g., They are flying planes
  • 20. Language • Syntax » Transformational grammar ◊Some ambiguous sentences are not explained by phrase structure E.g, Visiting relatives can be boring ◊Both interpretations map onto the same phrase structure...but, they map onto different meanings » Surface structure: Superficial appearance (i.e., phrase structure). » Deep structure: The meaning of the sentence. » Transformational rules: convert the deep structure into a surface structure (a sentence ready to be spoke)
  • 21. Language • Syntax » Resolving ambiguity (McKay, 1966) ◊Lexical ambiguity – E.g., Although he was continually bothered by the cold … – Control: headache ◊Surface ambiguity – E.g., Although Hannibal sent troops over a week ago … – Control: almost ◊Underlying ambiguity – E.g., Knowing that visiting relatives could be bothersome …. – Control: visiting some
  • 22. Language • Syntax » Resolving ambiguity (McKay, 1966) ◊Results
  • 23. Language • Syntax » Case grammar ◊Semantic analysis involves determining the semantic role of each word or concept and computing sentence meaning based on that analysis. ◊E.g, A] The key will open the door B] The janitor will open the door with the key – The ‘key’ is the subject of [A] and an object in [B] but serves the same role in each sentence.
  • 24. Language • Syntax » Interaction between syntax and semantics ◊Fillenbaum (1974) – Had subjects read and then paraphrase several sentences – Normal sentences: Threat: Don’t print that or I will sue you. Control: John got off the bus and went to the store – Perverse/disordered Threat: Don’t print that or I won’t sue you Control: John went in the store and got on the bus. – Results: Perverse: 50% normalized in their paraphrases Disordered: 60 % normalized.
  • 25. Nice we’re having weather isn’t it?
  • 26. Brain & Language • Neuropsychology of language » Aphasia: Language deficits resulting from brain-related disorders and injury. ◊Very common – 40 % of all strokes produce some aphasia » Broca’s Aphasia ◊Paul Broca - studied patient Leborgne (A.K.A.’Tan’) – Treated for leg injury – Died a few days later – Autopsied brain – Discovered ‘Broca’s area’ – Left Hemisphere dominance for language
  • 27. Brain & Language • Neuropsychology of language » Broca’s Aphasia Paul Broca
  • 28. Brain & Language • Neuropsychology of language » Broca’s Aphasia ◊Production Deficits – Problems in producing fluent language – Range from ‘Tan,tan,tan,…’ to short phrases – Lack function words and grammar May retain idioms (‘fit as a fiddle’) or songs – Proximity to motor cortex Dysarthria: loss of control over articulatory muscles Speech Apraxia: Unable to program voluntary articulatory movements. Paul Broca
  • 29. Brain & Language • Neuropsychology of language » Broca’s Aphasia ◊Comprehension deficits – Unable to analyze precise grammatical information E.g. “The Boy ate the cookie” Who ate the Cookie? “Boy ate cookie” Implied grammar (cookies don’t eat boys) “The Boy was kicked by the girl” Who kicked whom? “Boy kick girl” Paul Broca
  • 30. Brain & Language • Neuropsychology of language » Wernicke’s Aphasia ◊Carl Wernicke, 1870s – Examined two patients Problems understanding language following strokes Fluent but nonsensical speech Poor language comprehension Proximity to auditory sensory areas (Wernicke proposed word memory area) Carl Wernicke
  • 31. Brain & Language • Neuropsychology of language » Wernicke’s Aphasia ◊Production deficits – Sounds fluent (e.g., foreign language) – Neologistic (invented words) – Semantic substitutions E.g. I called my mother on the television and did not understand the romers by the door. Carl Wernicke
  • 32. Brain & Language • Neuropsychology of language » Wernicke’s Aphasia ◊Comprehension deficits – Do not recognize the incomprehensibility of their own sentences – Do not comprehend written or spoken language ◊“Here and gone again” – Aphasia improves over time – Anomia: Losing the ability to retrieve words (nouns) Carl Wernicke
  • 33. Brain & Language • Neuropsychology of language » Classical localization model (Lichtheim, 1885; Geschwand, 1967) Conceptual Information Wernicke’sBroca’s
  • 34. Brain & Language • Neuropsychology of language » Classical localization model (Lichtheim, 1885; Geschwand, 1967) ◊Damage to main areas – Broca’s Aphasia – Wernicke’s Aphasia ◊Damage to connections – Conduction aphasia – Transcortical sensory aphasia
  • 35. Brain & Language • Neuropsychology of language » Conduction aphasia ◊Damage to the connection between Wernicke’s and Broca’s area – Arcuate Fasciculus
  • 36. Brain & Language • Neuropsychology of language » Conduction aphasia ◊Production deficits – Problems producing spontaneous speech – Problem repeating speech – Sometimes use words incorrectly ◊Comprehension – Can understand spoken/written words – Can hear their own speech errors, but cannot correct them
  • 37. Brain & Language • Neuropsychology of language » Conduction aphasia Conceptual Information Wernicke’sBroca’s
  • 38. Brain & Language • Neuropsychology of language » A prediction Conceptual Information Wernicke’sBroca’s
  • 39. Brain & Language • Neuropsychology of language » A prediction ◊ Disconnecting Wernicke’s from the conceptual area should lead to repetition without comprehension. ◊Transcortical Sensory Aphasi – Damage to the angular gyri
  • 40. Brain & Language • Neurophysiology of language in the intact brain » ERP studies ◊The N400: Semantic violations
  • 41. Brain & Language • Neurophysiology of language in the intact brain » ERP studies ◊The P600: Syntactic Positive Shift (syntactic violation)
  • 42. Brain & Language • Neurophysiology of language in the intact brain ◊Dispreferred continuation of ambiguous sentences – E.g., The spy saw the cop with the binoculars Who has the binoculars? “The spy has the binoculars” -> preferred continuation ◊The N400 and aphasia – Swaab et al. Patients listened to sentences that had an anomalous word at the end.
  • 43. Brain & Language • Neurophysiology of language in the intact brain ◊Swaab et al. (1997)
  • 44. Brain & Language • Neurophysiology of language in the intact brain ◊A caveat: Individual differences – Stimulation mapping of the brain Neurosurgery around left hemisphere language areas – A couple hundred of partients – Correlation with effects in Wernicke and Broca’s area are week Some patients have naming problems in the area, not all. – Anatomical localizations vary considerably.
  • 45. Brain & Language • Neurophysiology of language in the intact brain ◊A caveat: Individual differences

×