FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2074803732> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2074803732 endingPage "R296" @default.
• W2074803732 startingPage "R295" @default.
• W2074803732 abstract "A new study of the functional anatomy of noun and verb production suggests an important role for semantic representations in the cortical processing of these two distinct grammatical classes. A new study of the functional anatomy of noun and verb production suggests an important role for semantic representations in the cortical processing of these two distinct grammatical classes. The most basic grammatical distinctions that can be made are between ‘parts of speech’, distinctions which clarify how words are used. Of the parts of speech, nouns and verbs are constant classifications across languages — even languages which do not mark grammatical tense, such as Mandarin Chinese, still treat nouns and verbs as separate classes of words. Studies of brain-damaged patients have provided evidence that noun and verb processing can be dissociated — the use of one can be damaged more than the use of the other. But such neuropsychological approaches are poor at defining the neural basis of such differentiation, and the topic of the neural representation of nouns and verbs has provoked a lively series of papers (see [1Perani D. Cappa S.F. Schnur T. Tettamanti M. Collin S. Rosa M.M. Fazio F. The neural correlates of verb and noun processing. A PET study.Brain. 1999; 122: 2337-2344Crossref PubMed Scopus (387) Google Scholar, 2Tyler L.K. Bright P. Fletcher P. Stamatakis E.A. Neural processing of nouns and verbs: the role of inflectional morphology.Neuropsychologia. 2004; 42: 512-523Crossref PubMed Scopus (142) Google Scholar], for example). Shapiro et al. [3Shapiro K.A. Moo L.R. Caramazza A. Cortical signatures of noun and verb production.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2006; 103: 1644-1649Crossref PubMed Scopus (159) Google Scholar] have recently reported a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) study of the production of spoken nouns and verbs, the results of which indicate that different neural systems are recruited for each grammatical class. Specifically, the left prefrontal cortex, left superior parietal lobule and left superior temporal gyrus were found to be activated in the production of verbs, and the left anterior fusiform gyrus was activated in the production of nouns. One of the big issues when attempting to differentiate nouns and verbs is that, in addition to grammatical distinctions, they also often differ semantically — to put this crudely, verbs are ‘doing words’ that describe actions, and nouns are words that describe objects. As Shapiro et al. [3Shapiro K.A. Moo L.R. Caramazza A. Cortical signatures of noun and verb production.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2006; 103: 1644-1649Crossref PubMed Scopus (159) Google Scholar] note, this distinction is not absolute — verbs can refer to abstract events, ‘to judge’ for example, and nouns can refer to actions, as in ‘the walk’. And verbs typically have more possible inflections than nouns. There are two further challenges in using English to probe the neuroanatomy of nouns and verbs. The first is that, in English, nouns and verbs are not differentiated morphologically — though they are in their inflectional affixes — thus reading the word ‘hammer’ does not in and of itself indicate whether this is in the sense of the verb ‘I hammer’ or the noun ‘my hammer’. The second challenge is that English is very flexible in allowing many verbs to be created from existing nouns: for example, ‘the chair’, ‘to chair’; ‘the plate’, ‘to plate’; and my personal favourite, ‘the trousers’, ‘to trouser’. There are data indicating that English speakers do not process ‘hammers’ in different neural regions, depending on whether the word was interpreted as a noun or a verb; rather, the common semantic component dominates [4Tranel D. Martin C. Damasio H. Grabowski T.J. Hichwa R. Effects of noun-verb homonymy on the neural correlates of naming concrete entities and actions.Brain Lang. 2005; 92: 288-299Crossref PubMed Scopus (91) Google Scholar]. Shapiro et al. [3Shapiro K.A. Moo L.R. Caramazza A. Cortical signatures of noun and verb production.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2006; 103: 1644-1649Crossref PubMed Scopus (159) Google Scholar] addressed these challenges by using the words in short phrases: ‘he jumped’, ‘the jumps’, which disambiguate the grammatical status of the target words. They also used pseudo-words as nouns and verbs — ‘he zugs’, ‘the prids’ — a clever way of attempting to isolate the semantic contribution to nouns and verbs, though, as they note, this does not prevent the subjects from assigning some abstract meaning to the non-words. In a final elegant twist, Shapiro et al. [3Shapiro K.A. Moo L.R. Caramazza A. Cortical signatures of noun and verb production.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2006; 103: 1644-1649Crossref PubMed Scopus (159) Google Scholar] used a variety of noun and verb categories, including abstract and concrete nouns, and irregular and regular noun and verb inflections, on the assumption that brain areas truly selective for nouns and verbs should be selectively activated by the two different grammatical identities, and not modulated by these other conditions or by task performance. Their design thus allowed them to infer that the left superior temporal gyrus activation in response to verbs is also modulated by the reaction time and by abstract/concrete distinctions, a complex role which is consistent with suggestions that the posterior superior temporal lobe, the ‘core’ of Wernicke's area, subserves complex roles in speech perception and production, and is implicated in both working memory [5Wise R.J.S. Scott S.K. Blank S.C. Mummery C.J. Warburton E. Identifying separate neural sub-systems within ‘Wernicke's area’.Brain. 2001; 124: 83-95Crossref PubMed Scopus (458) Google Scholar] and the processing of abstract words [6Wise R.J.S. Howard D. Mummery C.J. Fletcher P. Leff A. Büchel C. Scott S.K. Noun imageability and the temporal lobes.Neuropsychologia. 2000; 38: 985-994Crossref PubMed Scopus (120) Google Scholar]. The design also permitted them to conclude that the left inferior frontal and superior parietal response to verbs, and the left anterior fusiform response to nouns, are activated by these grammatical classes irrespective of lexical factors. Shapiro et al. [3Shapiro K.A. Moo L.R. Caramazza A. Cortical signatures of noun and verb production.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2006; 103: 1644-1649Crossref PubMed Scopus (159) Google Scholar] point out that the robust activations seen across experiments for verbs and nouns do seem to correspond roughly to ‘verb as action’ and ‘nouns as objects’. The verb activation was in prefrontal and parietal cortex, areas associated with the control of movement (for example [7Rushworth M.F. Johansen-Berg H. Gobel S.M. Devlin J.T. The left parietal and premotor cortices: motor attention and selection.Neuroimage. 2003; 1: S89-S100Crossref Scopus (367) Google Scholar]), and the noun activation was in the left basal temporal lobe, near to regions associated with visual object processing (for example [8Tyler L.K. Stamatakis E.A. Bright P. Acres K. Abdallah S. Rodd J.M. Moss H.E. Processing objects at different levels of specificity.J. Cogn. Neurosci. 2004; 16: 351-362Crossref PubMed Scopus (217) Google Scholar]). Without assuming that this activation means that syntactically verbs are processed as actions and nouns are processed as objects, the authors point out that such activations are consistent with a role for such representations in the acquisition of nouns and verbs in development. Similarly, Shapiro et al. [3Shapiro K.A. Moo L.R. Caramazza A. Cortical signatures of noun and verb production.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2006; 103: 1644-1649Crossref PubMed Scopus (159) Google Scholar] suggest that their results are consistent with a core representational aspect of nouns being their reference to individuated objects or actions, and an analogous core aspect of verbs being their association with events — an obligatory temporal extent. They point out that this account is supported by a close anatomical relationship between the area selective for nouns and basal temporal lobe areas previously identified [9Tarr M.J. Cheng Y.D. Learning to see faces and objects.Trends Cogn. Sci. 2003; 7: 23-30Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (103) Google Scholar] as distinguishing between example items from higher-order groupings, and an established role for prefrontal and parietal networks, seen in this study for verbs, in the processing of time and temporal structure [10Pastor M.A. Day B.L. Macaluso E. Friston K.J. Frackowiak R.S. The functional neuroanatomy of temporal discrimination.J. Neurosci. 2004; 24: 2585-2591Crossref PubMed Scopus (141) Google Scholar]. While Shapiro et al. [3Shapiro K.A. Moo L.R. Caramazza A. Cortical signatures of noun and verb production.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2006; 103: 1644-1649Crossref PubMed Scopus (159) Google Scholar] are admirably restrained in their interpretations, they outline how their results suggest there is some relationship between grammatical class and semantic representations. This is a far from trivial issue: from a classic psycho-linguistic perspective, semantic and syntactic representations can be fully dissociated and indeed, from some positions, syntactic representations could well be considered to be preeminent in human language organization. The new data suggest, at the very least, that these hard distinctions need to be softened when we consider the neural instantiation of these linguistic categories. Such a perspective has also been addressed in a recent study with which I was associated [11Vigliocco G. Warren J. Siri S. Arciuli J. Scott S. Wise R. The role of semantics and grammatical class in the neural representation of words.Cerebr. Cortex. 2006; (in press)PubMed Google Scholar]. Here we moved from English as our model language and exploited the fact that Italian distinguishes between nouns and verbs morphologically — for example, ‘fermata’, stop (noun) and ‘fermare’, to stop (verb) — even when the words are not inflected as plurals or by tense. We controlled for semantic effects by using only verbs and nouns that referred to events, and we directly compared the contribution of grammatical class (nouns and verbs) to the contribution of semantic class (whether the words referred to motion or sensations). Our study involved native Italian speakers listening passively to single words. We found that the same brain network was activated in processing nouns and verbs, whereas differences were reported for the processing of motion, which showed preferential activation in left primary and premotor cortex, and sensory, which showed preferential activation in left inferior fusiform gyrus. Thus, differences in preferential activation in our study [11Vigliocco G. Warren J. Siri S. Arciuli J. Scott S. Wise R. The role of semantics and grammatical class in the neural representation of words.Cerebr. Cortex. 2006; (in press)PubMed Google Scholar] were strictly driven by semantic rather than grammatical class. Following on from the new study by Shapiro et al. [3Shapiro K.A. Moo L.R. Caramazza A. Cortical signatures of noun and verb production.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2006; 103: 1644-1649Crossref PubMed Scopus (159) Google Scholar], this is also evidence suggesting that noun/verb processing differences are not related to grammatical class per se, but are driven by correlated semantic differences (see also [4Tranel D. Martin C. Damasio H. Grabowski T.J. Hichwa R. Effects of noun-verb homonymy on the neural correlates of naming concrete entities and actions.Brain Lang. 2005; 92: 288-299Crossref PubMed Scopus (91) Google Scholar]). Of course, to some degree we find somewhat different effects since our paradigm (speech perception), or baseline (an acoustic control) and our stimuli are different, but I think the converging interpretations of a semantic component to syntactic classes raises some intriguing issues. Will we ever be able to identify neural systems which show a purely syntactic profile of processing, and if so, will nouns and verbs be the way to do so unambiguously? Is syntactic structure the dominant organizational principle for human language, or, when considering the neural substrates, is it possible that we will continue to find a more central role for semantic structure and organization?" @default.
• W2074803732 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2074803732 creator A5042559213 @default.
• W2074803732 date "2006-04-01" @default.
• W2074803732 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W2074803732 title "Language Processing: The Neural Basis of Nouns and Verbs" @default.
• W2074803732 cites W2049104523 @default.
• W2074803732 cites W2060768190 @default.
• W2074803732 cites W2076280106 @default.
• W2074803732 cites W2086623779 @default.
• W2074803732 cites W2113668716 @default.
• W2074803732 cites W2117551638 @default.
• W2074803732 cites W2124636492 @default.
• W2074803732 cites W2134521491 @default.
• W2074803732 cites W2136834013 @default.
• W2074803732 cites W2167223412 @default.
• W2074803732 cites W2272954594 @default.
• W2074803732 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2006.03.042" @default.
• W2074803732 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16631578" @default.
• W2074803732 hasPublicationYear "2006" @default.
• W2074803732 type Work @default.
• W2074803732 sameAs 2074803732 @default.
• W2074803732 citedByCount "6" @default.
• W2074803732 countsByYear W20748037322013 @default.
• W2074803732 countsByYear W20748037322015 @default.
• W2074803732 countsByYear W20748037322017 @default.
• W2074803732 countsByYear W20748037322018 @default.
• W2074803732 countsByYear W20748037322021 @default.
• W2074803732 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2074803732 hasAuthorship W2074803732A5042559213 @default.
• W2074803732 hasBestOaLocation W20748037321 @default.
• W2074803732 hasConcept C121934690 @default.
• W2074803732 hasConcept C12426560 @default.
• W2074803732 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2074803732 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2074803732 hasConcept C188147891 @default.
• W2074803732 hasConcept C2524010 @default.
• W2074803732 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W2074803732 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W2074803732 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2074803732 hasConceptScore W2074803732C121934690 @default.
• W2074803732 hasConceptScore W2074803732C12426560 @default.
• W2074803732 hasConceptScore W2074803732C138885662 @default.
• W2074803732 hasConceptScore W2074803732C15744967 @default.
• W2074803732 hasConceptScore W2074803732C188147891 @default.
• W2074803732 hasConceptScore W2074803732C2524010 @default.
• W2074803732 hasConceptScore W2074803732C33923547 @default.
• W2074803732 hasConceptScore W2074803732C41895202 @default.
• W2074803732 hasConceptScore W2074803732C86803240 @default.
• W2074803732 hasIssue "8" @default.
• W2074803732 hasLocation W20748037321 @default.
• W2074803732 hasLocation W20748037322 @default.
• W2074803732 hasOpenAccess W2074803732 @default.
• W2074803732 hasPrimaryLocation W20748037321 @default.
• W2074803732 hasRelatedWork W1976158732 @default.
• W2074803732 hasRelatedWork W1980694675 @default.
• W2074803732 hasRelatedWork W1998831991 @default.
• W2074803732 hasRelatedWork W2066149447 @default.
• W2074803732 hasRelatedWork W2599607735 @default.
• W2074803732 hasRelatedWork W2613959985 @default.
• W2074803732 hasRelatedWork W2750620247 @default.
• W2074803732 hasRelatedWork W3198256891 @default.
• W2074803732 hasRelatedWork W4235562464 @default.
• W2074803732 hasRelatedWork W4353002400 @default.
• W2074803732 hasVolume "16" @default.
• W2074803732 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2074803732 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2074803732 magId "2074803732" @default.
• W2074803732 workType "article" @default.