Advertisement

On the Complexity of Language Processing by the Brain

  • P. Stanley PetersJr.

Abstract

Language is man’s most powerful system for processing information internally and his most general system both for this purpose and for that of transmitting and receiving it externally; and language itself is subject to processing by the human nervous system, so that when we process information with the aid of language, our nervous systems process that information only indirectly. Language, then, implicates information processing in at least two ways and is, accordingly, quite a fitting topic at this Symposium.

Keywords

Noun Phrase Speech Perception Turing Machine Reflexive Pronoun Semantic Representation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Benton, A. L. (1964). Developmental aphasia and brain damage. Cortex, 1: 40–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bever, T., Fodor, J., Garrett, M. and Mehler, J. (1967). Transformational operations and stimulus complexity. Unpublished manuscript, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  3. Bever, T. and Mehler, J. (1966). The coding hypothesis and short term memory. Unpublished manuscript, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  4. Blumenthal, A. (1967). Prompted recall of sentences. J. Verb. Learn. Verb. Behav., 6: 203–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chomsky, N. (1956). Three models for the description of language. IRE Trans. Inform. Theory, IT2: 113–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chomsky, N. (1961). On the notion “rule of grammar.” In Roman Jakobson (ed.), Structure of language and its mathematical aspects. Am. Math. Soc. Providence, Rhode Island.Google Scholar
  7. Chomsky, N. (1963). Formal properties of grammars. In D. Luce, R. Bush and E. Galanter (eds.), Handbook of mathematical psychology. New York: Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  8. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Chomsky, N. (in press). Remarks on nominalizations. In R. Jacobs and P. Rosenbaum (eds.), Readings in English transformational grammar. New York: Blaisdell.Google Scholar
  10. Chomsky, N. and Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  11. Coleman, E. (1964). The comprehensibility of several grammatical transformations. J. Applied Psychol., 48: 186–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Csillag, P. (1947). Eine Bemerkung zur Auflösung der eingeschachtelten Rekursion. Acta Scientarum Mathematicarum Szeged, 11: 169–173.Google Scholar
  13. Fodor, J. and Bever, T. (1965). The psychological reality of linguistic segments. J. Verb. Learn. Verb. Behav., 4: 414–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fodor, J. and Garrett, M. (1967). Some syntactic determinants of sentential complexity. Percept, and Psychophys., 2: 289–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fodor, J., Garrett, M. and Bever, T. (1968). Some syntactic determinants of sentential complexity, II: verb structure. Percept, and Psychophys., 3: 453–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fodor, J., Jenkins, J. and Saporta, S. (1965). Some tests on implications from transformational grammar. Unpublished manuscript, Center for Advanced Studies in the Behavioral Sciences.Google Scholar
  17. Garrett, M., Bever, T. and Fodor, J. (1966). The active use of grammar in speech perception. Percept, and Psychophys., 1: 30–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Geschwind, N. (1965). Disconnection syndromes in man and animal. Brain, 88 : 237–294, 585–644.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gough, P. (1965). Grammatical transformations and speed of understanding. J. Verb. Learn. Verb. Behav., 4: 107–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Halle, M. (1959). The sound pattern of Russian. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
  21. Halle, M. (1962). Phonology in generative grammar. Word, 18: 54–72.Google Scholar
  22. Halle, M. and Stevens, K. (1962). Speech recognition: a model and a program for research. IRE Trans. Inform. Theory, IT 8: 155–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Head, H. (1926). Aphasia and kindred disorders of speech. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Johnson, N. (1966). The psychological reality of phrase-structure rules. J. Verb. Learn. Verb. Behav., 4: 469–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Katz, J. and Postal, P. (1964). An integrated theory of linguistic description. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  26. Lenneberg, E. (1962). Understanding language without ability to speak: a case report. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol., 65: 419–425.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lenneberg, E. (1967). Biological foundations of language. New York: Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  28. Liberman, A., Cooper, F., Shankweiler, D. and Studdert-Kennedy, M. (1967). Perception of the speech code. Psych. Rev., 74: 431–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Maclay, H. and Osgood, C. (1959). Hesitation phenomena in spontaneous English speech. Word, 1: 19–44.Google Scholar
  30. McMahon, E. (1963). Grammatical analysis as part of understanding. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  31. Mehler, J. (1963). Some effects of grammatical transformations on the recall of English sentences. J. Verb. Learn. Verb. Behav., 2: 346–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mehler, J. (1964). How some sentences are remembered. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  33. Miller, G. (1962). Some psychological studies of grammar. Amer. Psychol., 77:748–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Miller, G. and McKean, K. (1964). A Chronometrie study of some relations between sentences. Quart. J. Exper. Psychol., 16: 297–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Miller, G., McKean, K. and Slobin, D. (1962). The exploration of transformations by sentence matching. Amer. Psychol., 17: 748–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Penfleld, W. and Roberts, L. (1959). Speech and brain-mechanisms. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Perlmutter, D. (1968). Deep and surface structure constraints in syntax. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  38. Peters, S. and Ritchie, R. (in preparation). On the generative power of transformational grammars.Google Scholar
  39. Postal, P. (1964). Limitations of phrase structure grammars. In J. Fodor and J. Katz (eds.), The structure of language: readings in the philosophy of language. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  40. Rabin, M. and Scott, D. (1959). Finite automata and their decision problems. IBM J. Res. and Devel., 3: 115–125.Google Scholar
  41. Ross, J. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  42. Russell, W. and Espir, M. (1961). Traumatic aphasia: a study of aphasia in war wounds of the brain. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Savin, H. and Perchonock, E. (1965). Grammatical structure and the immediate recall of English sentences. J. Verb. Learn. Verb. Behav., 4: 348–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Slobin, D. (1963). Grammatical transformations in childhood and adulthood. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  45. Slobin, D. (1966). Grammatical transformations and sentence comprehension in childhood and adulthood. J. Verb. Learn. Verb. Behav., 5: 219–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stevens, K. and Halle, M. (1967). Remarks on analysis by synthesis and distinctive features. In W. Wathen-Dunn (ed.), Models for the perception of speech and visual form. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1969

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. Stanley PetersJr.
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Texas at AustinAustinUSA

Personalised recommendations