Might language be telepathy?

Juliana Novo Gomes; Julia Cataldo Lopes

doi:10.25189/rabralin.v19i2.1428

Pode a língua ser telepatia?

Juliana Novo Gomes,

Julia Cataldo Lopes

V. 19, N. 2 (2020)
Enviado: mai. 13, 2020
Publicado: jul. 16, 2020
DOI 10.25189/rabralin.v19i2.1428

XML

Resumo

Buscando decifrar o processo de compreensão e produção da linguagem, Fedorenko apresenta pesquisas com dados comportamentais, computacionais e de imageria cerebral das última década. Primeiramente, Fedorenko propõe que as regiões que suportam a linguagem são seletivas apenas a ela. Em seguida, argumenta que as regiões de processamento sintático são as mesmas que processam informações semânticas. Finalmente, Fedorenko sugere que o operador dominante para a região da linguagem é a composição semântica e não a sintática, como indicava a literatura vigente: se um input com problemas sintáticos fornece evidências suficientes para a composição semântica, a resposta máxima da rede linguística é alcançada. Assim, propriedades sintáticas poderiam ser restringidas por pressão comunicativa. Ela conclui que, tais resultados interpretados em conjunto, apontam para uma forte integração entre o léxico e a sintaxe, aproximando-se de modelos teóricos como as gramáticas baseadas no uso e a de construções.

Referências

BEMIS, D.; PYLKKANEN, L. Domain-general mechanisms in the construction of meaning. In: CUNY CONFERENCE ON HUMAN SEN-TENCE PROCESSING, 2020, New York City.

BLANK, I. A.; FEDORENKO, E. Domain-general brain regions do not track linguistic input as closely as language-selective regions. Journal of Neuroscience, v. 37, n. 41, 11 Oct. 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3642-16.2017.

BLANK, I. A.; KANWISHER, N.; FEDORENKO, E. A functional dissociation between language and multiple-demand systems revealed in patterns of BOLD signal fluctuations. Journal of Neurophysiology, v. 112, n. 5, p. 1105-1118, 1 Sep. 2014. DOI: 10.1152/jn.00884.2013.

BORNKESSEL-SCHLESEWSKY, I.; SCHLESEWSKY, M.; SMALL, S. L.; RAUSCHECKER, J. P. Response to Skeide and Friederici: the myth of the uniquely human ‘direct’ dorsal pathway. Trends on Cognitive Science, v. 19, n. 9, p. 484-5, Sept. 2015. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2015.05.010.

COVER, T. M.; THOMAS, J. A. Elements of information theory. John Wiley & Sons, 2012.

FEDORENKO, E.; VARLEY, R. Language and thought are not the same thing: evidence from neuroimaging and neurological patients. In: ANNALS OF THE NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, v. 1369, n. 1, Apr. 2016. DOI: 10.1111/nyas.13046.

FEDORENKO, E.; HSIEH, P.; NIETO-CASTAÑÓN, A.; WHITFIELD-GABRIELI, S.; KANWISHER, N. A new method for fMRI investigations of language: defining OIs functionally in individual subjects. Journal of Neurophysiology, v. 104, p. 1177-1194, Aug. 2010. DOI: 10.1152/jn.00032.2010.

FEDORENKO, E.; BEHR, M. K.; KANWISHER, N. Functional specificity for high-level linguistic processing in the human brain. In: NA-TIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES U.S.A. v. 108, n. 39, p. 16428-16433, 27 Sep. 2011. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1112937108.

FEDORENKO, E.; DUNCUN, J.; KANWISHER, N. Language-selective and domain-general regions lie side by side within Broca’s area. Current Biology, v. 22. n. 21, p. 2059-2062, 6 Nov. 2012. DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2012.09.011.

FEDORENKO, E.; SCOTT, T. L.; BRUNNER, P.; COON, W. G.; PRITCHETT, B.; SCHALK, G.; KANWISHER, N. Neural correlate of the con-struction of sentence meaning. PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, v. 113, n. 41, p. E6256-E6262, 11 Oct. 2016. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1612132113.

FERREIRA, F.; BAILEY, K. G.; FERRARO, V. Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychologi-cal Science, v. 11, n. 1, p. 11-15, Feb. 2002.

FRIEDERICI, A. D. The brain basis of language processing: from structure to function. Physiological Reviews, v. 91, n. 4, p. 1357-1392, Oct. 2011. DOI: 10.1152/physrev.00006.2011.

GIBSON, E.; PIANTADOSI, S. T.; FEDORENKO, E. Quantitative methods in syntax/semantics research: A response to Sprouse and Al-meida (2013). Language and Cognitive Processes, v. 28, n. 3, p. 229-240, 12 Apr. 2013. DOI: 10.1080/01690965.2012.704385

HAGOORT, P. MUC (memory, unification, control) and beyond. Frontiers in psychology, 4, 416, 12 Jul. 2013. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00416.

HAGOORT, P. On Broca, brain, and binding: a new framework. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, v. 9, n. 9, p. 416-423, Sep. 2005. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2005.07.004.

LEVY, R. Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition, v. 106, n. 3, p. 1126–1177, 20 May 2007. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.05.006.

MAHOWALD, K.; FEDORENKO, E. Reliable individual-level neural markers of high-level language processing: A necessary precursor for relation neural variability to behavioral and genetic variability. Neuroimage, v. 139, p. 74-93, 1 Oct. 2016. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.05.073.

MATCHIN, W.; HICKOK, G. The cortical organization of syntax. Cerebral Cortex, v. 30, n. 3, p. 1481-1498, 14 Mar. 2020. DOI: 10.1093/cercor/bhz180.

MINEROFF, Z.; BLANK, I. A.; MAHOWALD, K.; FEDORENKO, E. A robust dissociation among the language multiple demand, and default mode networks: Evidence from inter-region correlations in effect size. Neuropsychologia, v. 119, p. 501-511, Oct. 2018. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2018.09.011.

MOLLICA, F.; SIEGELMAN, M.; DIACHEK, E.; PIANTADOSI, S. T. Composition is the core driver of the language-selective network. Neu-robiology of Language, v. 1, n. 1, p. 104-134, 2020. DOI: 10.1162/nol_a_00005.

PALLIER, C.; DEVAUCHELLE, A.; DEHAENE, S. Cortical representation of the constituent structure of sentences. PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES USA, v. 108, n. 6, p. 2522-2527, 8 Feb. 2011. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1018711108.

PAUNOV, A. M.; BLANK, I. A.; FEDORENKO, E. Functionally distinct language and theory of mind networks are synchronized at rest and during language comprehension. Journal of Neurophysiology, v. 121, n. 4, p. 1244-1118, 1 Apr. 2019. DOI: 10.1152/jn.00619.2018.

PRITCHETT, B. L.; HOEFLIN, C.; KOLDEWYN, K.; DECHTER, E.; FEDORENKO, E. High-level language processing regions are not en-gaged in action observation or imitation. Journal of Neurophysiology, v. 120, n. 5, p. 2555-2570, 1 Nov. 2018. DOI: 10.1152/jn.00222.2018

SCOTT, T. L.; GALLÉE, J.; FEDORENKO, E. A new fun and robust version of an fMRI localizer for the frontotemporal language system. Cognitive Neuroscience, v. 8, n. 3, p. 167-176, Jul. 2017. DOI: 10.1080/17588928.2016.1201466.

THE language system in the human mind and brain. Conference presented by Evelina Fedorenko, Evelina. [S.l., s.n], 2020. 1 video

(1h 18min 11s). Published by the Associação Brasileira de Linguística channel. Available on:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqrsHmhcrSQ. Accessed in: may. 6th, 2020

TYLER, L. K.; MARSLEN-WILSON, W. D.; RANDALL, B.; WRIGHT, P.; DEVEREUX, B. J.; ZHUANG, J.; PAPOUTSI, M.; STAMATAKIS, E. A. Left inferior frontal cortex and syntax: function, structure and behaviour in left-hemisphere damaged patients. Brain, v. 134, pt. 2, p. 415–431. Feb. 2011. DOI: 10.1093/brain/awq369.

VANDENBERGHE, R.; NOBRE, A. C.; PRICE, C. J. The response of left temporal cortex to sentences. Journal of Cognitive Neurosciences, v. 14, n. 4, p. 550–560, 15 May 2002. DOI: 10.1162/08989290260045800.

XML