Linking Neuroimaging with Functional Linguistic Analysis to Understand Processes of Successful Communication

Abstract

Functional linguistic models posit a systematic link between language FORM and the FUNCTIONS for which language is used. This is a systematic (and therefore quantifiable) relationship. Yet many open questions remain about the mechanisms that link form, function and communication relevant outcomes. Neuroimaging methods can provide insight into such processes that are not apparent from other methods. We argue that the combination of neural and linguistic measures will allow insight into both individual and population-level communication processes that would not be possible using either method in isolation. We present examples illustrating this methodological integration and notes regarding the most amenable linguistic tools. We summarize a framework in which language presented to and produced by participants undergoing neuroimaging is correlated with the resulting neural data and other proximal communication outcomes allowing the triangulation of individual experimental with population level outcomes, thereby linking between micro and macro levels of analysis.

Notes

¹ It should be noted that it is also possible to treat linguistic data at either level of analysis as an outcome variable. Linguistic output (again, either categorized along theoretical or practical lines) can be predicted by a combination of neural responses collected during exposure in a relatively small group of participants. Such data can also be combined with other predictor variables, such as, self-report ratings relating to the stimuli (e.g. interest, intention, argument strength) and other individual difference measures (e.g. personality traits, social network variables, level of media exposure and usage).

² Such predictions would, of course, be contingent upon establishing robust associations between neural activation and specific linguistic patterns. Future work is required to establish such baselines of neural activity associated with a range of linguistic constructions independent of specific neuroimaging tasks designed to examine specific cognitive processes. Some of this work has been carried out in neurolinguistic and psycholinguistic studies, which have for instance shown consistent activation of specific areas associated with various linguistic levels (e.g., phonetic, lexical, syntactic, semantic, pragmatic) in both the production and reception of language (Awad, Warren, Scott, Turkheimer, & Wise, 2007; Menenti, Gierhan, Segaert, & Hagoort, 2011; Menenti, Petersson, & Hagoort, 2012; Silbert, Honey, Simony, Poeppel, & Hasson, 2014).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported in part by NIH-1 DP2 DA035156-01 (PI: Falk).