Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Conclusion
References

The Ontogenesis of Action Syntax

Profile image of Laura MaffongelliLaura Maffongelli

Collabra: Psychology

https://doi.org/10.1525/COLLABRA.215
visibility

…

description

11 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

Language and action share similar organizational principles. Both are thought to be hierarchical and recursive in nature. Here we address the relationship between language and action from developmental and neurophysiological perspectives. We discuss three major aspects: The extent of the analogy between language and action; the necessity to extend research on the yet largely neglected aspect of action syntax; the positive contribution of a developmental approach to this topic. We elaborate on the claim that adding an ontogenetic approach will help to obtain a comprehensive picture about both the interplay between language and action and its development, and to answer the question whether the underlying mechanisms of detecting syntactic violations of action sequences are similar to or different from the processing of language syntactic violations.

Related papers

From action to language: Evidence and speculations
Alessandro D'Ausilio
View PDFchevron_right
Language and action: a common intentional, generative, and inferential process
Marco Mazzone

2014

The thesis that language is a special case of action is analysed in terms of the following three claims. First, language is presumably just as intentional as action is, in the precise sense that both involve largely automatic processing of goal-directed representations, with conscious attention essentially granting stability to the process. Second, this largely automatic processing of both language and action seems to be based on a shared generative mechanism. Third, this common process can be described as a bidirectional inferential device, which at the same time allows the prediction of goals from means and the retrodiction of means from goals. These considerations converge towards the idea that language processing is based on domain-general processes which are shared with non-linguistic action.

View PDFchevron_right
The minimalist grammar of action
Y. Aloimonos

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 2011

Language and action have been found to share a common neural basis and in particular a common ‘syntax’, an analogous hierarchical and compositional organization. While language structure analysis has led to the formulation of different grammatical formalisms and associated discriminative or generative computational models, the structure of action is still elusive and so are the related computational models. However, structuring action has important implications on action learning and generalization, in both human cognition research and computation. In this study, we present a biologically inspired generative grammar of action, which employs the structure-building operations and principles of Chomsky's Minimalist Programme as a reference model. In this grammar, action terminals combine hierarchically into temporal sequences of actions of increasing complexity; the actions are bound with the involved tools and affected objects and are governed by certain goals. We show, how the to...

View PDFchevron_right
From Action to Typology? A Neuro‐evolutionary Perspective
Michael A Arbib

The article offers an assessment of David Kemmerer's article 'The Cross-Linguistic Prevalence of SOV and SVO Word Orders Ref lects the Sequential and Hierarchical Representation of Action in Broca's Area' in the context of the question, 'How did biological evolution yield a language-ready brain?' We argue that the path from praxic actions to grammatical structure is indirect and that comparative neurobiology of human and monkey and computational modeling of neural circuitry may both play a role complementary to that of human neurology and neurolinguistics in tracing the intricacies of that path. We conclude that (a) Kemmerer's focus on BA44 ignores the involvement of a larger system and that the key factor of subject salience is determined by regions outside BA44 supporting the perceptual salience of people within a scene; (b) the ability to process 'non-canonical' structures (i.e., structures with a non-default mapping between syntax and semantics) may have been crucial in the evolution of language, and (c) that constituent hierarchies (i.e., the ability to express increasingly more complex information by increasing constituent complexity) also play a particularly important role in explaining the communicative power of language.

View PDFchevron_right
Language&Action Chap21
Jose Salas Herrera

C OULD two topics be less related than language and action? Both historical (e.g. Descartes, 1992) and contemporary (e.g. philosophers have argued that language is separate from perception and action, that it is a higher faculty, or that it is what separates human from animal. The data, however, present an overwhelming case in favor of an intimate relation between language and action. Much of the data and theory derive from considerations of embodied cognition, and so this chapter begins with a brief overview of that notion. Then, the relation between language and action is considered from the perspectives of neuroscience, cognitive development, and behavioral research. The chapter will conclude with a theoretical rationale for the relation: the mechanism of action planning is the mechanism that allows us to sensibly combine meanings across words and sentences.

View PDFchevron_right
Syntax: Its Evolution and Its Representation in the Brain
Ljiljana Progovac

BIOLINGUISTICS, 2010

observes that there is no clear correspondence between units of analysis in linguistics (especially the abstract and arbitrary-looking principles of syntax) and biological units of neuroscience, concluding that current neurolinguistic research presents a case of cross-sterilization, rather than cross-fertilization. Here the proposal is developed that decomposing syntax into intermediate evolutionary layers, into its evolutionary primitives, not only makes syntax compatible with gradualist accounts, but it also renders it more tangible and less abstract. In this approach, at least some complexities (and oddities) of syntax, such as Subjacency effects and the small clause core, can be seen as side-effects/by-products of evolutionary tinkering. It is conceivable that such evolutionary considerations are a necessary missing ingredient in any attempt to establish links between the postulates of syntax and the units of neuroscience. This article considers concrete linguistic data and suggestions as to where and how to look for neurobiological correlates of syntax.

View PDFchevron_right
Language tools and brain the ontogeny and phylogeny of hierarchically organized sequential behavior div
Patricia Greenfield

During the first two years of human life a common neural substrate (roughly Broca's area) underlies the hierarchical organization of elements in the development of speech as well as the capacity to combine objects manually, including tool use. Subsequent cortical differentiation, beginning at age two, creates distinct, relatively modularized capacities for linguistic grammar and more complex combination of objects. An evolutionary homologue of the neural substrate for language production and manual action is hypothesized to have provided a foundation for the evolution of language before the divergence of the hominids and the great apes. Support comes from the discovery of a Broca's area homologue and related neural circuits in contemporary primates. In addition, chimpanzees have an identical constraint on hierarchical complexity in both tool use and symbol combination. Their performance matches that of the two-year-old child who has not yet developed the neural circuits for complex grammar and complex manual combination of objects.

View PDFchevron_right
Unifying speech and language in a developmentally sensitive model of production
Melissa Redford

Journal of Phonetics, 2015

Speaking is an intentional activity. It is also a complex motor skill; one that exhibits protracted development and the fully automatic character of an overlearned behavior. Together these observations suggest an analogy with skilled behavior in the non-language domain. This analogy is used here to argue for a model of production that is grounded in the activity of speaking and structured during language acquisition. The focus is on the plan that controls the execution of fluent speech; specifically, on the units that are activated during the production of an intonational phrase. These units are schemas: temporally structured sequences of remembered actions and their sensory outcomes. Schemas are activated and inhibited via associated goals, which are linked to specific meanings. Schemas may fuse together over developmental time with repeated use to form larger units, thereby affecting the relative timing of sequential action in participating schemas. In this way, the hierarchical structure of the speech plan and ensuing rhythm patterns of speech are a product of development. Individual schemas may also become differentiated during development, but only if subsequences are associated with meaning. The necessary association of action and meaning gives rise to assumptions about the primacy of certain linguistic forms in the production process. Overall, schema representations connect usage-based theories of language to the action of speaking.

View PDFchevron_right
Toward a Theory of Syntactic Development Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Of
Yukio Otsu

Linguistic theory, if conceived as providing a framework for grammars that are mental representations of linguistic competence, should constitute an important part of a theory of language development, i.e., a theory of how cltildren acquire language. Despite this obvious point and the recent proliferation of developmental psycholinguistic literature, there exists a gap between studies of linguistic theory and of language development in children. This dissertation 1s one attempt to fill this gap between the two fields. The aim of this dissertation 1s to test experimentally whether some alleged linguistic universals in recent theories of generative grammar play a role in language development in children. We have Note to Chapter 1 Chpater 2 Aspects of a Theory of Language Development Chapter 1 Introd'1ction 2 4 6 9 Part II Chapter 3 3.1 3.2 Chapter 4 2.1 Basic Framework 2.2 Aspects of a Theory of Language Development 2.3 Connecting Developmental Data with Linguistic Theory: An example 2.4 Innate Linguistic Endowment and Language Development 33 2.5 State of the Art in Linguistic Theory and Experimental 36 Research 2.6 Methodology 39 Notes to Chapter 2 General Remarks Logic of the Experiments Experimental Groups Subjacency Condition and Syntactic Development in Children 4.1 Subjacency Condition 4.2 Experiment 1 4.3 Other Related Experiments 4.3.1 Experiment A 4.3.2 Experiment B 104 Appendix A Development of Complex Structures in Children: 117 A Survey of Recent Research and Our Theory 4.A.l

View PDFchevron_right
Is recursion language-specific? Evidence of recursive mechanisms in the structure of intentional action
Giuseppe Vicari

Consciousness and Cognition, 2014

In their 2002 seminal paper Hauser, Chomsky and Fitch hypothesize that recursion is the only human-specific and language-specific mechanism of the faculty of language. While debate focused primarily on the meaning of recursion in the hypothesis and on the human-specific and syntax-specific character of recursion, the present work focuses on the claim that recursion is language-specific. We argue that there are recursive structures in the domain of motor intentionality by way of extending John R. Searle's analysis of intentional action. We then discuss evidence from cognitive science and neuroscience supporting the claim that motor-intentional recursion is language-independent and suggest some explanatory hypotheses: (1) linguistic recursion is embodied in sensory-motor processing; (2) linguistic and motor-intentional recursions are distinct and mutually independent mechanisms. Finally, we propose some reflections about the epistemic status of HCF as presenting an empirically falsifiable hypothesis, and on the possibility of testing recursion in different cognitive domains.

View PDFchevron_right

References (94)

  1. Amoruso, L., Gelormini, C., Aboitiz, F., Alvarez González, M., Manes, F., Cardona, J. F., & Ibanez, A. (2013). N400 ERPs for actions: Building meaning in context. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7(3), 57. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00057
  2. Aslin, R. N. (2012). Infant eyes: A window on cognitive development. Infancy, 17(1), 126-140. DOI: https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7078.2011.00097.x
  3. Bahlmann, J., Schubotz, R. I., & Friederici, A. D. (2008). Hierarchical artificial grammar processing engages Broca's area. NeuroImage, 42(2), 525-34. DOI: https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.04.249
  4. Bahlmann, J., Schubotz, R., Mueller, J. L., Koester, D., & Friederici, A. D. (2009). Neural circuits of hierarchical visuo-spatial sequence processing. Brain Research, 1298, 161-70. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. brainres.2009.08.017
  5. Balconi, M., & Vitaloni, S. (2014). N400 effect when a semantic anomaly is detected in action representation. A source localization analysis. Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology, 31(1), 58-64. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1097/WNP.0000000000000017
  6. Baldwin, D. A., Baird, J. A., Saylor, M. M., & Clark, A. (2001). Infants parse dynamic action. Child Development, 72(3), 708-717. DOI: https://doi.org/10. 1111/1467-8624.00310
  7. Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59(1), 617-645. DOI: https:// doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639
  8. Basirat, A., Dehaene, S., & Dehaene-Lambertz, G. (2014). A hierarchy of cortical responses to sequence violations in three-month-old infants. Cognition, 132(2), 137-50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cognition.2014.03.013
  9. Bauer, P. J., Hertsgaard, L. A., Dropik, P., & Daly, B. P. (1998). When even arbitrary order becomes important: developments in reliable temporal sequencing of arbitrarily ordered events. Memory (Hove, England), 6(2), 165-98. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1080/741942074
  10. Behmer, L. P., & Crump, M. J. C. (2017). The dynamic range of response set activation during action sequencing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43(3), 537-554. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1037/xhp0000335
  11. Boeckx, C. A., & Fujita, K. (2014). Syntax, action, comparative cognitive science, and darwinian thinking. Frontiers in Psychology. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/ fpsyg.2014.00627
  12. Bruner, J. S. (1964). The course of cognitive growth. American Psychologist, 19(1), 1-15. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1037/h0044160
  13. Caramazza, A., Anzellotti, S., Strnad, L., & Lingnau, A. (2014). Embodied cognition and mirror neurons: A critical assessment. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 37(1), 1-15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/ annurev-neuro-071013-013950
  14. Casado, P., Martín-Loeches, M., León, I., Hernández- Gutiérrez, D., Espuny, J., Muñoz, F., de Vega, M., et al. (2017). When syntax meets action: Brain potential evidence of overlapping between language and motor sequencing. Cortex. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cortex.2017.11.002
  15. Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structure. The Hague: Mouton.
  16. Chomsky, N. (2006). Language and mind. Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9780511791222
  17. Christiansen, M. H., Conway, C. M., & Onnis, L. (2012). Similar neural correlates for language and sequential learning: Evidence from event-related brain potentials, 27(2), 231-256. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01690 965.2011.606666
  18. Clahsen, H., & Hansen, D. (2012). Profiling Linguistic Disability in German-Speaking Children. In P. Ball, M. Crystal, & D. Fletcher (Eds.), Assessing grammar: The languages of LARSP (pp. 77-91). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. DOI: https://doi.org/10. 21832/9781847696397-007
  19. Clerget, E., Winderickx, A., Fadiga, L., & Olivier, E. (2009). Role of Broca's area in encoding sequential human actions: a virtual lesion study. Neuroreport, 20(16), 1496-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/ WNR.0b013e3283329be8
  20. Comrie, B. (1989). Language universals and linguistic typology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  21. Crone, E. A., Poldrack, R. A., & Durston, S. (2010). Challenges and methods in developmental neuroimaging. Human Brain Mapping, 31(6), 835- 837. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.21053
  22. Daum, M. M., Prinz, W., & Aschersleben, G. (2008). Encoding the goal of an object-directed but uncompleted reaching action in 6-and 9-month-old infants. Developmental Science, 11(4), 607-619. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00705.x de Haan, M. (2013). Infant EEG and event-related potentials. Hove & New York: Taylor & Francis Group. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203759660
  23. de Villiers, J. G., Tager Flusberg, H. B., Hakuta, K., & Cohen, M. (1979). Children's comprehension of relative clauses. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 8(5), 499-518. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/ BF01067332
  24. Dominey, P. F., Hoen, M., Blanc, J.-M., & Lelekov- Boissard, T. (2003). Neurological basis of language and sequential cognition: Evidence from simulation, aphasia, and ERP studies. Brain and Language, 86(2), 207-225. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0093-934X(02)00529-1
  25. Egorova, N., Shtyrov, Y., & Pulvermüller, F. (2016). Brain basis of communicative actions in language. NeuroImage, 125, 857-867. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.10.055
  26. Engel, A. K., Maye, A., Kurthen, M., & König, P. (2013). Where's the action? The pragmatic turn in cognitive science. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(5), 202-209. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.03.006
  27. Fazio, P., Cantagallo, A., Craighero, L., D'Ausilio, A., Roy, A. C., Pozzo, T., Fadiga, L., et al. (2009). Encoding of human action in Broca's area. Brain: A Journal of Neurology, 132(Pt 7), 1980-8. DOI: https:// doi.org/10.1093/brain/awp118
  28. Frank, S. L., Bod, R., & Christiansen, M. H. (2012). How hierarchical is language use? Proceedings. Biological Sciences, 279(1747), 4522-31. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1098/rspb.2012.1741
  29. Freier, L., Cooper, R. P., & Mareschal, D. (2017). Preschool children's control of action outcomes. Developmental Science, 20(2), e12354. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ desc.12354
  30. Friederici, A., Bahlmann, J. R., Heim, S., Schubotz, R. I., & Anwander, A. (2006). The brain differentiates human and non-human grammars: Functional localization and structural connectivity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103(7), 2458-2463. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/ pnas.0509389103
  31. Friederici, A. D. (2004). Event-related brain potential studies in language. Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports, 4(6), 466-470. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1007/s11910-004-0070-0
  32. Gervain, J., Macagno, F., Cogoi, S., Peña, M., & Mehler, J. (2008). The neonate brain detects speech structure. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105(37), 14222-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0806530105
  33. Glenberg, A. M., & Gallese, V. (2012). Action-based language: A theory of language acquisition, comprehension, and production. Cortex, 48(7), 905- 922. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2011. 04.010
  34. Göksun, T., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Michnick Golinkoff, R. (2010). Trading Spaces: Carving up Events for Learning Language. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(1), 33-42. DOI: https://doi.org/10. 1177/1745691609356783
  35. Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: the nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press.
  36. Gómez, D. M., Berent, I., Benavides-Varela, S., Bion, R. A. H., Cattarossi, L., Nespor, M., & Mehler, J. (2014). Language universals at birth. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(16), 5837-41. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1073/pnas.1318261111
  37. Gönül, G., Takmaz, E. K., Hohenberger, A., & Corballis, M. (2018). The cognitive ontogeny of tool making in children: The role of inhibition and hierarchical structuring. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 173, 222-238. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jecp.2018.03.017
  38. Gredebäck, G., Johnson, S., & von Hofsten, C. (2010). Eye tracking in infancy research. Developmental Neuropsychology, 35(1), 1-19. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1080/87565640903325758
  39. Greenberg, J. H. (1963). Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. Universals of language. In J. H. Greenberg, (Ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  40. Hari, R. (2006). Action-perception connection and the cortical mu rhythm. Progress in Brain Research, 159, 253-60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0079-6123(06)59017-X
  41. Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N., & Fitch, W. T. (2002). The faculty of language: what is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science (New York, N.Y.), 298(5598), 1569-79. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.298.5598.1569
  42. Hunnius, S., & Bekkering, H. (2010). The early development of object knowledge: A study of infants' visual anticipations during action observation. Developmental Psychology, 46(2), 446-454. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016543
  43. Jeannerod, M. (2001). Neural simulation of action: A unifying mechanism for motor cognition. NeuroImage, 14(1), S103-S109. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/ nimg.2001.0832
  44. Johnson, M. H., & De Haan, M. (2015). Developmental cognitive neuroscience: an introduction. Retrieved from https://www.wiley.com/ en-us/Developmental +Cognitive+ Neuroscience% 3A+An+Introduction% 2C+4th+Edition-p-9781118938089
  45. Jusczyk, P. W. (1997). Finding and Remembering Words. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 6(6), 170-174. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721. ep10772947
  46. Kaduk, K., Bakker, M., Juvrud, J., Gredebäck, G., Westermann, G., Lunn, J., & Reid, V. M. (2016). Semantic processing of actions at 9 months is linked to language proficiency at 9 and 18 months. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 151, 96-108. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2016.02.003
  47. Kim, A., & Osterhout, L. (2005). The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Memory and Language, 52(2), 205-225. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.10.002
  48. Knudsen, B., Henning, A., Wunsch, K., Weigelt, M., & Aschersleben, G. (2012). The End-State Comfort Effect in 3-to 8-Year-Old Children in Two Object Manipulation Tasks. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 445. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00445
  49. Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K. D. (2011). Thirty years and counting: Finding meaning in the N400 component of the event-related brain potential (ERP). Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 621-647. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.131123
  50. Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1984). Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association. Nature, 307(5947), 161-163. DOI: https:// doi.org/10.1038/307161a0
  51. Lashley, K. S. (1951). The problem of serial order in behavior. In L. A. Jeffress (Ed.), Cerebral mechanisms in behavior: The hixon-symposium (pp. 112-147). New York: Wiley.
  52. Leroy-Gourhan, A. (1964). Le Geste et la Parole. Paris.
  53. Leshinskaya, A., & Caramazza, A. (2016). For a cognitive neuroscience of concepts: Moving beyond the grounding issue. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(4), 991-1001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/ s13423-015-0870-z
  54. Lieven, E., Behrens, H., Speares, J., & Tomasello, M. (2003). Early syntactic creativity: a usage-based approach. Journal of Child Language, 30(2), 333- 70. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ pubmed/12846301. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0305000903005592
  55. Maffongelli, L., Antognini, K., & Daum, M. M. (2018). Syntactical regularities of action sequences in the infant brain: When structure matters. Developmental Science, (in press). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ desc.12682
  56. Maffongelli, L., Bartoli, E., Sammler, D., Kölsch, S., Campus, C., Olivier, E., D'Ausilio, A., et al. (2015). Distinct brain signatures of content and structure violation during action observation. Neuropsychologia, 75. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. neuropsychologia.2015.05.020
  57. Magill, R. A. (2001). Augmented feedback in motor skill acquisition. In C. M. Singer, N. R. Hausenbas, & H. A. Janelle (Eds.). New York: John Wiley and Sos.
  58. Mandel, D. R., Nelson, D. G. K., & Jusczyk, P. W. (1996). Infants remember the order of words in a spoken sentence. Cognitive Development 11(2): 181-196. Retrieved from https://www.infona.pl/resource/ bwmeta1.element.elsevier-affd0e81-bfd2-3cc8- 82c2-396ddf2d95e3. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1016/ S0885-2014(96)90002-7
  59. Mandler, J. M. (1988). How to build a baby: On the development of an accessible representational system. Cognitive Development, 3(2), 113-136. DOI: https:// doi.org/10.1016/0885-2014(88)90015-9
  60. Marshall, P. J., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2011). Neural mirroring systems: Exploring the EEG mu rhythm in human infancy. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 1(2), 110-123. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2010. 09.001
  61. Martins, M. D., & Fitch, W. T. (2015). Do we represent intentional action as recursively embedded? The answer must be empirical. A comment on Vicari and Adenzato (2014). Consciousness and Cognition, 38, 16-21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2015.10.003
  62. Meteyard, L., Cuadrado, S. R., Bahrami, B., & Vigliocco, G. (2012). Coming of age: A review of embodiment and the neuroscience of semantics. Cortex, 48(7), 788-804. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex. 2010. 11.002
  63. Meyer, M., Braukmann, R., Stapel, J. C., Bekkering, H., & Hunnius, S. (2016). Monitoring others' errors: The role of the motor system in early childhood and adulthood. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 34(1), 66-85. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjdp.12101
  64. Moro, A. (2014). Response to Pulvermüller: the syntax of actions and other metaphors. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(5), 221. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. tics.2014.01.012
  65. Ní Choisdealbha, Á., & Reid, V. (2014). The developmental cognitive neuroscience of action: semantics, motor resonance and social processing. Experimental Brain Research, 232(6), 1585-1597. DOI: https://doi.org/10. 1007/s00221-014-3924-y
  66. Pastra, K., & Aloimonos, Y. (2012). The minimalist grammar of action. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 367(1585), 103- 117. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2011.0123
  67. Paulus, M. (2011). How infants relate looker and object: evidence for a perceptual learning account of gaze following in infancy. Developmental Science, 14(6), 1301-1310. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2011.01076.x Paulus, M. (2016). The development of action planning in a joint action context. Developmental Psychology, 52(7), 1052-1063. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/ dev0000139
  68. Paulus, M., Hunnius, S., & Bekkering, H. (2011). Can 14-to 20-month-old children learn that a tool serves multiple purposes? A developmental study on children's action goal prediction. Vision Research, 51(8), 955-960. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. visres.2010.12.012
  69. Pazzaglia, M., Smania, N., Corato, E., & Aglioti, S. M. (2008). Neural underpinnings of gesture discrimination in patients with limb apraxia. The Journal of Neuroscience: The Official Journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 28(12), 3030-41. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5748-07.2008
  70. Perani, D., Cappa, S. F., Schnur, T., Tettamanti, M., Collina, S., Rosa, M. M., & Fazio, F. (1999). The neural correlates of verb and noun processing a PET study. Brain, 122(12), 2337-2344. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1093/brain/122.12.2337
  71. Pezzulo, G., Donnarumma, F., Dindo, H., D'Ausilio, A., Konvalinka, I., & Castelfranchi, C. (2018). The body talks: Sensorimotor communication and its brain and kinematic signatures. Physics of Life Reviews. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2018.06.014
  72. Phillips, C., Kazanina, N., & Abada, S. H. (2005). ERP effects of the processing of syntactic long- distance dependencies. Cognitive Brain Research, 22(3), 407-428. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cogbrainres.2004.09.012
  73. Porter, G., Troscianko, T., & Gilchrist, I. D. (2007). Effort during visual search and counting: Insights from pupillometry. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60(2), 211-229. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1080/17470210600673818
  74. Pulvermüller, F. (2014). The syntax of action. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(5), 219-20. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1016/j.tics.2014.01.001
  75. Pulvermüller, F., & Fadiga, L. (2010). Active perception: Sensorimotor circuits as a cortical basis for language. Nature Reviews. Neuroscience, 11(5), 351-60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2811
  76. Reid, V. M., Csibra, G., Belsky, J., & Johnson, M. H. (2007). Neural correlates of the perception of goal-directed action in infants. Acta Psychologica, 124(1), 129-138. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2006.09.010
  77. Reid, V. M., Hoehl, S., Grigutsch, M., Groendahl, A., Parise, E., & Striano, T. (2009). The neural correlates of infant and adult goal prediction: Evidence for semantic processing systems. Developmental Psychology, 45(3), 620-629. DOI: https://doi.org/10. 1037/a0015209
  78. Reid, V. M., & Striano, T. (2008). N400 involvement in the processing of action sequences. Neuroscience Letters, 433(2), 93-97. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. neulet.2007.12.066
  79. Repetto, C., Colombo, B., & Riva, G. (2012). The link between action and language: recent findings and future perspectives. Biolinguistics, 6(3-4), 462-474.
  80. Rizzolatti, G., & Arbib, M. A. (1998). Language within our grasp. Trends in Neurosciences, 21(5), 188-94. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ pubmed/9610880. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0166-2236(98)01260-0
  81. Rizzolatti, G., & Craighero, L. (2004). The mirror-neuron system. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 27, 169-92. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.27.
  82. Saylor, M. M., Baldwin, D. A., Baird, J. A., & LaBounty, J. (2007). Infants' on-line segmentation of dynamic human action. Journal of Cognition and Development, 8(1), 113-128. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1080/15248370709336996
  83. Schipke, C. S., Knoll, L. J., Friederici, A., & Oberecker, R. (2012). Preschool children's interpretation of object- initial sentences: Neural correlates of their behavioral performance. Developmental Science, 15(6), 762-774. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2012.01167.x
  84. Sirigu, A., Cohen, L., Zalla, T., Eeckhout, P., Van Grafman, J., Agid, Y., Neuroscience, C., et al. (1998). Distinct frontal regions for processing sentence syntax and story grammar. Cortex, 1, 771-778. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-9452(08)70780-9
  85. Stapel, J. C., Hunnius, S., van Elk, M., & Bekkering, H. (2010). Motor activation during observation of unusual versus ordinary actions in infancy. Social Neuroscience, 5(5-6), 451-460. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1747 0919.2010.490667
  86. Tabor, W., Galantucci, B., & Richardson, D. (2004). Effects of merely local syntactic coherence on sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 50(4), 355-370. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jml.2004.01.001
  87. Tettamanti, M., Alkadhi, H., Moro, A., Perani, D., Kollias, S., & Weniger, D. (2002). Neural correlates for the acquisition of natural language syntax. NeuroImage, 17(2), 700-9. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1006/nimg.2002.1201
  88. van Schie, H. T., Toni, I., & Bekkering, H. (2006). Comparable mechanisms for action and language: Neural systems behind intentions, goals, and means. Cortex, 42(4), 495-498. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0010-9452(08)70385-X
  89. Vicari, G., & Adenzato, M. (2014). Is recursion language- specific? Evidence of recursive mechanisms in the structure of intentional action. Consciousness and Cognition, 26, 169-88. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. concog.2014.03.010
  90. Want, S. C., & Harris, P. L. (2001). Learning from other people's mistakes: causal understanding in learning to use a tool. Child Development, 72(2), 431-43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00288
  91. Warneken, F., Steinwender, J., Hamann, K., & Tomasello, M. (2014). Young children's planning in a collaborative problem-solving task. Cognitive Development, 31, 48-58. DOI: https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.cogdev.2014.02.003
  92. Westermann, G., Mareschal, D., Johnson, M. H., Sirois, S., Spratling, M. W., & Thomas, M. S. C. (2007). Neuroconstructivism. Developmental Science, 10(1), 75-83. DOI: https://doi.org/10. 1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00567.x
  93. Whiten, A., Flynn, E., Brown, K., & Lee, T. (2006). Imitation of hierarchical action structure by young children. Developmental Science, 9(6), 574-82. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2006.00535.x
  94. Zacks, J. M., Tversky, B., & Iyer, G. (2001). Perceiving, remembering, and communicating structure in events. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 130(1), 29-58. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0096-3445. 130.1.29

Related papers

Syntax at Hand: Common Syntactic Structures for action and language
Viviane Deprez

Plos One, 2013

Evidence that the motor and the linguistic systems share common syntactic representations would open new perspectives on language evolution. Here, crossing disciplinary boundaries, we explore potential parallels between the structure of simple actions and that of sentences. First, examining Typically Developing (TD) children displacing a bottle with or without knowledge of its weight prior to movement onset, we provide kinematic evidence that the subphases of this displacing action (reaching + moving the bottle) manifest a structure akin to linguistic embedded dependencies. Then, using the same motor task, we reveal that children suffering from specific language impairment (SLI), whose core deficit affects syntactic embedding and dependencies, manifest specific structural motor anomalies parallel to their linguistic deficits. In contrast to TD children, SLI children performed the displacing-action as if its subphases were juxtaposed rather than embedded. The specificity of SLI's structural motor deficit was confirmed by testing an additional control group: Fragile-X Syndrome patients, whose language capacity, though delayed, comparatively spares embedded dependencies, displayed slower but structurally normal motor performances. By identifying the presence of structural representations and dependency computations in the motor system and by showing their selective deficit in SLI patients, these findings point to a potential motor origin for language syntax.

View PDFchevron_right
Syntax at Hand: Common Syntactic Structures for Actions and Language
Alice Roy, Viviane Deprez

PLoS ONE, 2013

Evidence that the motor and the linguistic systems share common syntactic representations would open new perspectives on language evolution. Here, crossing disciplinary boundaries, we explore potential parallels between the structure of simple actions and that of sentences. First, examining Typically Developing (TD) children displacing a bottle with or without knowledge of its weight prior to movement onset, we provide kinematic evidence that the subphases of this displacing action (reaching + moving the bottle) manifest a structure akin to linguistic embedded dependencies. Then, using the same motor task, we reveal that children suffering from specific language impairment (SLI), whose core deficit affects syntactic embedding and dependencies, manifest specific structural motor anomalies parallel to their linguistic deficits. In contrast to TD children, SLI children performed the displacing-action as if its subphases were juxtaposed rather than embedded. The specificity of SLI's structural motor deficit was confirmed by testing an additional control group: Fragile-X Syndrome patients, whose language capacity, though delayed, comparatively spares embedded dependencies, displayed slower but structurally normal motor performances. By identifying the presence of structural representations and dependency computations in the motor system and by showing their selective deficit in SLI patients, these findings point to a potential motor origin for language syntax.

View PDFchevron_right
Action-based language: A theory of language acquisition, comprehension, and production
Vittorio Gallese

Cortex, 2011

Mirror neurons HMOSAIC model of action control a b s t r a c t Evolution and the brain have done a marvelous job solving many tricky problems in action control, including problems of learning, hierarchical control over serial behavior, continuous recalibration, and fluency in the face of slow feedback. Given that evolution tends to be conservative, it should not be surprising that these solutions are exploited to solve other tricky problems, such as the design of a communication system. We propose that a mechanism of motor control, paired controller/predictor models, has been exploited for language learning, comprehension, and production. Our account addresses the development of grammatical regularities and perspective, as well as how linguistic symbols become meaningful through grounding in perception, action, and emotional systems. ª

View PDFchevron_right
Phylogeny, Ontogeny, and Microgeny in Linguistic Process: Perception and Action as Progressive Specification
Jason W . Brown, Avraham Schweiger

Brain and Language, 2000

Is there another way to think about the neurology of language other than its anatomical and functional demarcations, its location in the brain, or its assignment to various linguistic components? After a century of aphasia study, can we say what a word is? We can describe, perhaps, some of the operations that seem to go into its production or perception, but what can we say about the word other than its putative constituents? In this paper, we outline an approach to language that views the linguistic process in relation to phylo-ontogeny. Specifically, linguistic entities (words, sentences, phonology, and morphology) are the momentary realizations (or articulations) of a context-to-item process (e.g., meaning-to-lexical form, phonological gestalts to phonemic strings), that is analogous to evolutionary and developmental process. This is not a replication by language of the phylo-ontogenetic sequence, nor a simple retracing of pathways laid down by antecedent processes, but rather a commonality in the patterns of evolving, yet over different temporal epochs. One consequence of this approach is that the presumed modular components in language (e.g., certain syntactic operations), to the extent that they reflect ''nodes'' in the processing flow, are endpoints of specification, not preprocessing stages. In other words, modularity is the product of evolutionary-anatomic and cognitive-linguistic processes, not ready grooves into which linguistic input flows.

View PDFchevron_right
Action in cognition: The case of language
Lawrence J Taylor

Empirical research has shown that the processing of words and sentences is accompanied by activation of the brain's motor system in language users. The degree of precision observed in this activation seems to be contingent upon (1) the meaning of a linguistic construction and (2) the depth with which readers process that construction. In addition, neurological evidence shows a correspondence between a disruption in the neural correlates of overt action and the disruption of semantic processing of language about action. These converging lines of evidence can be taken to support the hypotheses that motor processes (1) are recruited to understand language that focuses on actions and (2) contribute a unique element to conceptual representation. This article explores the role of this motor recruitment in language comprehension. It concludes that extant findings are consistent with the theorized existence of multimodal, embodied representations of the referents of words and the meaning carried by language. Further, an in-tegrative conceptualization of ''fault tolerant comprehension'' is proposed.

View PDFchevron_right

Cited by

Sensitive period for the plasticity of alpha activity in humans
Helene Vitali

Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 2021

Blindness Developmental trajectory of resting-state EEG Cross-modal plasticity Blind/severely visually impaired vs sighted infants and children Alpha rhythm and impairment in blind/ severely visually Impaired infants and children A B S T R A C T Visual experience is crucial for the development of neural processing. For example, alpha activity development is a vision-dependent mechanism. Indeed, studies report no alpha activity is present in blind adults. Nevertheless, studies have not investigated the developmental trajectory of this activity in infants and children with blindness. Here, we hypothesize that the difference in neural activity of blind compared to sighted subjects is: absent at birth, progressive with age, specifically occipital and linked to a gradual motor impairment. Therefore, we consider spectral power of resting-state EEG and its association with motor impairment indices, in blind subjects and in sighted controls between 0 and 11 years of age. Blind subjects show posterior alpha activity during the first three years of life, although weaker and slower maturing compared to sighted subjects. The first great differentiation between blind and sighted subjects occurs between 3 and 6 years of age. Starting in this period, reduced alpha activity increases the probability of motor impairment in blind subjects, likely because of impaired perception/interaction. These results show that visual experience mediates the neural mechanisms generating alpha oscillations during the first years of life, suggesting that it is a sensitive period for the plasticity of this process.

View PDFchevron_right
Preschool children's use of perceptual-motor knowledge and hierarchical representational skills for tool making
Annette Hohenb

Acta Psychologica, 2021

Although other animals can make simple tools, the expanded and complex material culture of humans is unprecedented in the animal kingdom. Tool making is a slow and late-developing ability in humans, and preschool children find making tools to solve problems very challenging. This difficulty in tool making might be related to the lack of familiarity with the tools and may be overcome by children's long term perceptual-motor knowledge. Thus, in this study, the effect of tool familiarity on tool making was investigated with a task in which 5-to-6-yearold children (n = 75) were asked to remove a small bucket from a vertical tube. The results show that children are better at tool making if the tool and its relation to the task are familiar to them (e.g., soda straw). Moreover, we also replicated the finding that hierarchical complexity and tool making were significantly related. Results are discussed in light of the ideomotor approach.

View PDFchevron_right
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved