How Grammar Conveys Meaning: Language-Specific Spatial Encoding Patterns and Cross-Language Commonality in Higher-Order Neural Space
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Languages come in different forms but have shared meanings to convey. Some meanings are expressed by sentence structure and morphologic inflections rather than content words, such as indicating time frame using tense. This fMRI study investigates whether there is cross-language common representation of grammatical meanings that can be identified from neural signatures in the bilingual human brain. Based on the representations in intersentence neural similarity space, identifying grammatical construction of a sentence in one language by models trained on the other language resulted in reliable accuracy. By contrast, cross-language identification of grammatical construction by spatially matched activation patterns was only marginally accurate. Brain locations representing grammatical meaning in the two languages were interleaved in common regions bilaterally. The locations of voxels representing grammatical features in the second language were more varied across individuals than voxels representing the first language. These findings suggest grammatical meaning is represented by language-specific activation patterns, which is different from lexical semantics. Commonality of grammatical meaning is neurally reflected only in the interstimulus similarity space. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Whether human brain encodes sentence-level meanings beyond content words in different languages similarly has been a long-standing question. We characterize the neural representations of similar grammatical meanings in different languages. Using complementary analytic approaches on fMRI data, we show that the same grammatical meaning is neurally represented as the common pattern of neural distances between sentences. The results suggest the possibility of identifying specific grammatical meaning expressed by different morphologic and syntactic implementations of different languages. The neural realization of grammatical meanings is constrained by the specific language being used, but the relationships between the neural representations of sentences are preserved across languages. These findings have some theoretical implications on a distinction between grammar and lexical meanings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".