tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post1895987785028332347..comments2024-03-28T04:04:55.806-07:00Comments on Faculty of Language: Face it, research is toughNorberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15701059232144474269noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-53351308869671175632017-06-20T01:43:59.764-07:002017-06-20T01:43:59.764-07:00A couple of weeks ago on a previous blog post I wr...A couple of weeks ago on a previous blog post I wrote this comment, which seems just as relevant here:<br /><br />When neuroscientists try and figure out the neural code for spatial and conceptual navigation, they go way beyond correlational analysis of oscillatory entrainment to external stimuli (as in Ding et al and much other work). They also look at what's going on inside the rest of the brain, examining cross-frequency couplings (like phase-amplitude coupling), spike time coordination, cellular analysis, etc.<br /><br />Take this recent study by Constantinescu et al (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/352/6292/1464.long). They show that the neural code which has long been implicated in spatial navigation may also be implicated in navigating more abstract representations, such as conceptual space (recent work also points to the same code being implicated in navigating auditory space, too).<br /><br />This work should be of exceptional interest to linguists. If this is how the brain interprets basic relations between conceptual representations, then we should probably put aside the Jabberwocky EEG studies and eye-tracking experiments for a little while (important though they may be) and engage in these sorts of emerging frameworks.<br /><br />Instead of claiming that some region of interest in the brain (or some oscillatory band) is responsible for some complex process (e.g. "semantic composition is implemented via gamma increases", "syntax is represented in anterior Broca's area", and "my Top 10 Tom Cruise movies are stored in the angular gyrus"), exploring the neural code is of much greater importance and urgency. This is something Gallistel actually stressed at CNS recently.<br /><br />Final implication for Merge, the "Basic Property", and other rhetorical and computational constructs: The Constantinescu study actually reflects a more general trend in neurobiology these days. Things that were once deemed highly domain-specific are now being understood to implement much more generic computations, and the only domain-specific things left are the *representations* these computations operate over. In other words, good luck trying to find the "neural correlates of Merge" if you only have your Narrow Syntax glasses on.<br /><br />My bets on "the right computational code": https://www.ucl.ac.uk/pals/research/linguistics/research/uclwpl/wpl/16papers/UCLWPL_2016_Murphy.pdf<br /><br />http://www.biolinguistics.eu/index.php/biolinguistics/article/viewFile/415/361Elliot Murphyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05912787912621615746noreply@blogger.com