Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2012 Nov 22;279(1747):4522-31.
doi: 10.1098/rspb.2012.1741. Epub 2012 Sep 12.

How hierarchical is language use?

Affiliations
Review

How hierarchical is language use?

Stefan L Frank et al. Proc Biol Sci. .

Abstract

It is generally assumed that hierarchical phrase structure plays a central role in human language. However, considerations of simplicity and evolutionary continuity suggest that hierarchical structure should not be invoked too hastily. Indeed, recent neurophysiological, behavioural and computational studies show that sequential sentence structure has considerable explanatory power and that hierarchical processing is often not involved. In this paper, we review evidence from the recent literature supporting the hypothesis that sequential structure may be fundamental to the comprehension, production and acquisition of human language. Moreover, we provide a preliminary sketch outlining a non-hierarchical model of language use and discuss its implications and testable predictions. If linguistic phenomena can be explained by sequential rather than hierarchical structure, this will have considerable impact in a wide range of fields, such as linguistics, ethology, cognitive neuroscience, psychology and computer science.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Combining constructions into a sentence by switching between parallel sequential streams. Note that the displayed vertical order of constructions is arbitrary.

References

    1. Frazier L., Rayner K. 1982. Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: eye-movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cogn. Psychol. 14, 178–210 10.1016/0010-0285(82)90008-1 (doi:10.1016/0010-0285(82)90008-1) - DOI
    1. Jurafsky D. 1996. A probabilistic model of lexical and syntactic access and disambiguation. Cogn. Sci. 20, 137–194 10.1207/s15516709cog2002_1 (doi:10.1207/s15516709cog2002_1) - DOI
    1. Vosse T., Kempen G. 2000. Syntactic structure assembly in human parsing: a computational model based on competitive inhibition and a lexicalist grammar. Cognition 75, 105–143 10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00063-9 (doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00063-9) - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kempen G., Hoenkamp E. 1987. An incremental procedural grammar for sentence formulation. Cogn. Sci. 11, 201–258 10.1207/s15516709cog1102_5 (doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1102_5) - DOI
    1. Hartsuiker R. J., Antón-Méndez I., Van Zee M. 2001. Object attraction in subject–verb agreement construction. J. Mem. Lang. 45, 546–572 10.1006/jmla.2000.2787 (doi:10.1006/jmla.2000.2787) - DOI

Publication types