In my 40 years of studying grammar, from my PhD to my articles to my recent patent filings in the field, I have dreamed that somebody comes up with the hypothesis that explains it all.
Friedemann Pulvermüller and Luciano Fadiga have just done that in Active perception: sensorimotor circuits as a cortical basis for language (Nature Reviews Neuroscience 11, 351-360 (May 2010)).
Page 357:
The mechanisms underlying grammar and syntax may be domain general, applying to every kind of action. Indeed, similar to phrases in sentences, basic body acts are joined in action chains to form a meaningful goal-directed action sequence (drinking from a cup requires grasping, lifting, turning and so on). Importantly, even very complex types of syntactic structures have an equivalent in other action domains. The hierarchical structure of embedded or ‘nested’ sentences is paralleled, for example, in music and bodily interaction111,126, as the following examples illustrate: a centre-embedded sentence (“The man {whom the dog chased} ran away”) has the same nested structure as a standard jazz piece (theme {solos} modified theme) and complex everyday action sequences (open door {switch on light} close door). In each case, a superordinate sequence surrounds a nested action or sequence (in the inner parentheses). Because language, music and body action have similar hierarchical syntactic structures, the principal underlying brain mechanisms might be the same58. The domain-general role of Broca’s area, especially Brodmann area 44, in the hierarchical structuring of actions (see the main text) could be derived from its evolutionarily earlier premotor functions in action control and action recognition. It will be a fruitful target of future research to clarify how syntactic processes and representations emerge from action–perception circuits and which properties of the human brain are important for building syntactic circuits127.
In one sweep, the authors change the very nature of linguistic theory, which suddenly is thrown into considering metaphors not only in the build up of elements of language, but also in the build up of the structure of language itself. Grammaticality in this view reflects motor plausibility, and semantics is just a reflection of our everyday actions.
I think it will take some time for this to be both known and accepted (the earth goes around the sun, after all), but in my book, the authors got the prize.
In nominating for the price, I''ll add Robin Dunbar to Friedemann Pulvermüller and Luciano Fadiga; he anticipated this in his theory that language is an extension of grooming (Grooming, Gossip, and the Evolution of Language, 1996, Faber and Faber, London).
Bertrand du Castel
Friedemann Pulvermüller and Luciano Fadiga have just done that in Active perception: sensorimotor circuits as a cortical basis for language (Nature Reviews Neuroscience 11, 351-360 (May 2010)).
Page 357:
The mechanisms underlying grammar and syntax may be domain general, applying to every kind of action. Indeed, similar to phrases in sentences, basic body acts are joined in action chains to form a meaningful goal-directed action sequence (drinking from a cup requires grasping, lifting, turning and so on). Importantly, even very complex types of syntactic structures have an equivalent in other action domains. The hierarchical structure of embedded or ‘nested’ sentences is paralleled, for example, in music and bodily interaction111,126, as the following examples illustrate: a centre-embedded sentence (“The man {whom the dog chased} ran away”) has the same nested structure as a standard jazz piece (theme {solos} modified theme) and complex everyday action sequences (open door {switch on light} close door). In each case, a superordinate sequence surrounds a nested action or sequence (in the inner parentheses). Because language, music and body action have similar hierarchical syntactic structures, the principal underlying brain mechanisms might be the same58. The domain-general role of Broca’s area, especially Brodmann area 44, in the hierarchical structuring of actions (see the main text) could be derived from its evolutionarily earlier premotor functions in action control and action recognition. It will be a fruitful target of future research to clarify how syntactic processes and representations emerge from action–perception circuits and which properties of the human brain are important for building syntactic circuits127.
In one sweep, the authors change the very nature of linguistic theory, which suddenly is thrown into considering metaphors not only in the build up of elements of language, but also in the build up of the structure of language itself. Grammaticality in this view reflects motor plausibility, and semantics is just a reflection of our everyday actions.
I think it will take some time for this to be both known and accepted (the earth goes around the sun, after all), but in my book, the authors got the prize.
In nominating for the price, I''ll add Robin Dunbar to Friedemann Pulvermüller and Luciano Fadiga; he anticipated this in his theory that language is an extension of grooming (Grooming, Gossip, and the Evolution of Language, 1996, Faber and Faber, London).
Bertrand du Castel
