4.7 Article

Rational and Flexible Adaptation of Sentence Production to Ongoing Language Experience

期刊

FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY
卷 12, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.647076

关键词

statistical learning; cue validity; executive function; dorsal stream; ventral stream; individual differences; verb bias

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The debate over whether sentences are primarily formulated using lexically based or non-lexically based information has been discussed extensively. Evidence suggests that sentences can be constructed flexibly depending on the statistical properties of the input and the validity of lexical vs. abstract cues for predicting sentence structure. Different neural pathways seem to be recruited for individuals with different executive function abilities and for verbs with different statistical properties, indicating alternative routes for producing the same structure. The human brain adapts to ongoing language experience during adulthood, with the nature of the adjustment depending rationally on the statistical contingencies of the current context.
Whether sentences are formulated primarily using lexically based or non-lexically based information has been much debated. In this perspective article, I review evidence for rational flexibility in the sentence production architecture. Sentences can be constructed flexibly via lexically dependent or independent routes, and rationally depending on the statistical properties of the input and the validity of lexical vs. abstract cues for predicting sentence structure. Different neural pathways appear to be recruited for individuals with different executive function abilities and for verbs with different statistical properties, suggesting that alternative routes are available for producing the same structure. Together, extant evidence indicates that the human brain adapts to ongoing language experience during adulthood, and that the nature of the adjustment may depend rationally on the statistical contingencies of the current context.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据