Author(s)

XiangYu Chang

Affiliation(s)

Beijing Foreign Studies University, Beijing 100000, China.

Corresponding Author

XiangYu Chang

ABSTRACT

In the field of biolinguistics, theoretical models treating language as a biological system have advanced rapidly, yet the neurobiological evidence underpinning these models has lagged behind, creating a significant gap between theory and data. This study bridges the theoretical framework of biolinguistics with empirical neurobiological evidence to examine the neural foundations of the faculty of language, both in its broad (FLB) and narrow (FLN) senses. Drawing on recent neurobiological findings, the study demonstrates that the modular architecture of FLB—comprising phonological-phonetic, syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic modules—is instantiated in distinct yet dynamically interacting neural circuits. Notably, the left inferior frontal gyrus (IFG) and the posterior superior temporal gyrus (pSTG) play central roles in syntactic computation, while the left superior and middle temporal gyri are primarily involved in semantic computation. Evidence from comprehension studies further highlights that syntactic computations may continue beyond the point of initial phrase construction, indicating that syntactic computations are not necessarily complete once their outputs are transmitted to other modules (semantic, pragmatic, phonological-phonetic modules). Regarding FLN, the core syntactic operation merge is shown to be implemented in the BA 44 of the left IFG as the neural locus of external merge. While some cross-species studies suggest merge-like abilities in non-humans, the neurobiological specificity of merge remains uniquely human. Internal merge, responsible for syntactic movement, has not yet been systematically investigated in terms of its neural underpinnings; however, a review of neuroimaging studies involving syntactic displacement suggests that internal merge engages overlapping regions in the IFG, indicating a shared but functionally distinct neural basis. This study affirms the biological grounding of the faculty of language and argues for a more integrative empirical agenda in biolinguistics—one that combines theoretical precision with neuroscientific rigor to uncover the architecture of language.

KEYWORDS

Biolinguistics; Neurobiology of language; The faculty of language; Modularity

CITE THIS PAPER

XiangYu Chang. Neurobiological insights into the faculty of language within biolinguistics. Trends in Social Sciences and Humanities Research. 2025, 3(5): 1-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.61784/tsshr3166.

REFERENCES

[1] Boeckx C, Grohmann K K. The Biolinguistics Manifesto. Biolinguistics, 2007, 1: 001–008. DOI: 10.5964/bioling.8583.

[2] Lenneberg E H. Biological foundations of language. John Wiley and Sons, 1967.

[3] Mao T. The biological nature and evolution of human language. Linguistic Research, 2019, 1.

[4] Ning C. What is Generative Grammar ‘shenme shi shengcheng yufa’. Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2011.

[5] Boeckx C. Beyond Humboldt’s problem: Reflections on biolinguistics and its relation to generative grammar. Language Sciences, 2015, 50: 127–132. DOI: 10.1016/j.langsci.2015.02.002.

[6] Hauser M D, Chomsky N, Fitch W T. The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? 2002.

[7] Mao T. Redefining pragmatic competence among modular interactions and beyond. Intercultural Pragmatics, 2020, 17(5): 605–631. DOI: 10.1515/ip-2020-5004.

[8] Odden D. Formal phonology. Nordlyd, 2013, 40(1): 249–273.

[9] Friederici A D. The Brain Basis of Language Processing: From Structure to Function. Physiological Reviews, 2011, 91(4): 1357–1392. DOI: 10.1152/physrev.00006.2011.

[10] Friederici A D. Language in Our Brain. The MIT Press, 2017.

[11] Menenti L, Gierhan S M E, Segaert K, et al. Shared Language: Overlap and Segregation of the Neuronal Infrastructure for Speaking and Listening Revealed by Functional MRI. Psychological Science, 2011, 22(9): 1173–1182. DOI: 10.1177/0956797611418347.

[12] Menenti L, Segaert K, Hagoort P. The neuronal infrastructure of speaking. Brain and Language, 2012, 122(2): 71–80. DOI: 10.1016/j.bandl.2012.04.012.

[13] Van Turennout M, Hagoort P, Brown C M. Brain Activity During Speaking: From Syntax to Phonology in 40 Milliseconds. Science, 1998, 280(5363): 572–574. DOI: 10.1126/science.280.5363.572.

[14] Hahne A, Friederici A D. Differential task effects on semantic and syntactic processes as revealed by ERPs. Cognitive Brain Research, 2002, 13(3): 339–356. DOI: 10.1016/s0926-6410(01)00127-6.

[15] Mao T. Pragmatic competence, autistic language use and the basic properties of human language. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 2023, 53(3): 314–332. DOI: 10.1111/jtsb.12377.

[16] Feng W, Wu Y, Jan C, et al. Effects of contextual relevance on pragmatic inference during conversation: An fMRI study. Brain and Language, 2017, 171: 52–61. DOI: 10.1016/j.bandl.2017.04.005.

[17] Berwick R C, Chomsky N. Why only us: Language and evolution. MIT press, 2016.

[18] Goucha T, Friederici A D. The language skeleton after dissecting meaning: A functional segregation within Broca’s Area. NeuroImage, 2015, 114: 294–302. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.04.011.

[19] Ding N, Melloni L, Zhang H, et al. Cortical tracking of hierarchical linguistic structures in connected speech. Nature Neuroscience, 2016, 19(1): 158–164. DOI: 10.1038/nn.4186.

[20] Liu Y, Gao C, Wang P, et al. Exploring the neurobiology of Merge at a basic level: Insights from a novel artificial grammar paradigm. Frontiers in Psychology, 2023, 14. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1151518.

[21] Zaccarella E, Friederici A D. Merge in the Human Brain: A Sub-Region Based Functional Investigation in the Left Pars Opercularis. Frontiers in Psychology, 2015, 6. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01818.

[22] Schell M, Zaccarella E, Friederici A D. Differential cortical contribution of syntax and semantics: An fMRI study on two-word phrasal processing. Cortex, 2017, 96: 105–120. DOI: 10.1016/j.cortex.2017.09.002.

[23] Zaccarella E, Schell M, Friederici A D. Reviewing the functional basis of the syntactic Merge mechanism for language: A coordinate-based activation likelihood estimation meta-analysis. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 2017, 80: 646–656. DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.06.011.

[24] Ferrigno S, Cheyette S J, Piantadosi S T, et al. Recursive sequence generation in monkeys, children, U.S. adults, and native Amazonians. Science Advances, 2020, 6(26). DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aaz1002.

[25] Gentner T Q, Fenn K M, Margoliash D, et al. Recursive syntactic pattern learning by songbirds. Nature, 2006, 440(7088): 1204–1207. DOI: 10.1038/nature04675.

[26] Radford A. Analysing English  Sentences: A Minimalist Approach. Cambridge University Press, 2009.

[27] Rizzi L. Relativized Minimality. The MIT Press, 1990. https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262680615/relativized-minimality/.

[28] Ross J R. Constraints on variables in syntax. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1967. https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/15166.

[29] Maki H, Kaiser L, Ochi M. Embedded topicalization in English and Japanese. Lingua, 1999, 109(1): 1–14. DOI: 10.1016/S0024-3841(98)00055-2.

[30] Collins C. Principles of argument structure: A merge-based approach. The MIT Press, 2004.

[31] Miyagawa S. Why Agree? Why Move?: Unifying Agreement-Based and Discourse-Configurational Languages. The MIT Press, 2009. DOI: 10.7551/mitpress/8116.001.0001.

[32] Ben-Shachar M, Palti D, Grodzinsky Y. Neural correlates of syntactic movement: Converging evidence from two fMRI experiments. NeuroImage, 2004, 21(4): 1320–1336. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2003.11.027.

[33] Ohta S, Koizumi M, Sakai K L. Dissociating Effects of Scrambling and Topicalization within the Left Frontal and Temporal Language Areas: An fMRI Study in Kaqchikel Maya. Frontiers in Psychology, 2017, 8. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00748.

[34] Mack J E, Meltzer-Asscher A, Barbieri E, et al. Neural Correlates of Processing Passive Sentences. Brain Sciences, 2013, 3(3): 1198–1214. DOI: 10.3390/brainsci3031198.

[35] Wu C, Zaccarella E, Friederici A D. Universal Neural Basis of Structure Building Evidenced by Network Modulations Emerging from Broca’s Area: the Case of Chinese. Human Brain Mapping, 2019, 40: 1705–1717. DOI: 10.1002/hbm.24482.