cs.CLSep 13, 2026

Formal Properties of Language as Constraints on Neural Dynamics

Authors: Elliot Murphy

Organizations: Vivian L. Smith Department of Neurosurgery, McGovern Medical School, UTHealth, Houston, TX, USA · Texas Institute for Restorative Neurotechnologies, UTHealth, Houston, TX, USA

Read PDF
Ask AI
Cite

Copy citation

DOINot available for this paper

Abstract

What must a neural system be capable of to implement language? Current research annotates stimuli with linguistic variables and tests which electrodes, voxels, or language-model layers predict neural activity. Yet predictive success leaves mechanisms under-constrained. Here, we show that algebraic properties of language specify invariants that mechanisms must preserve: non-associative hierarchical grouping, commutativity, recursive closure, access to substructures, and structured workspace transitions. We term this the Neural Admissibility Program (NAP). Syntactic structure building is analyzed algebraically, with candidate mechanisms offered for each requirement: content-addressable workspace memory, graph-structured transient dynamics scheduling structure-building operations (e.g. stable heteroclinic channels), and a phase-coupled sealing operation recording grouping. Simulations show that a corrected Marcolli-Berwick entropy-optimized binding gate preserves grouping only within a narrow commitment band. As an alternative, we propose a novel neural binding operation we term 'Meld': two constituent populations converge through shared synapses, integrate sublinearly, and saturate. Meld is, to our knowledge, the closest neurally plausible composition law to syntactic Merge. It preserves every NAP invariant, uses known cortical operations, and recovers hierarchical structure at every tested depth and temperature. It predicts that effective population dimensionality separates alternative bracketings and that the composite depends on constituent disagreement. Importantly, the laws decoding bracketing most accurately are a priori inadmissible, showing that decoding accuracy alone cannot adjudicate between mechanisms. By specifying how neural dynamics can remain faithful to linguistic structure, the NAP changes the criterion by which neural implementations of cognition are evaluated.

More in this topic

Neural Encoding

Neural encoding studies how information is represented in biological neural activity and how models map stimuli or signals into neural codes.

See all 91 papers

Explore similar work

CardsList
Mar 31, 2026

Frege in the Flesh: Biolinguistics and the Neural Enforcement of Syntactic Structures

Biolinguistics is the interdisciplinary scientific study of the biological foundations, evolution, and genetic basis of human language. It treats language as an innate biological organ or faculty of the mind, rather than a cultural tool, and it challenges a behaviorist conception of human language acquisition as being based on stimulus-response associations. Extracting its most essential component, it takes seriously the idea that mathematical, algebraic models of language capture something natural about the world. The syntactic structure-building operation of MERGE is thought to offer the scientific community a "real joint of nature", "a (new) aspect of nature" (Mukherji 2010), not merely a formal artefact. This mathematical theory of language is then seen as being able to offer biologists, geneticists and neuroscientists clearer instructions for how to explore language. The argument of this chapter proceeds in four steps. First, I clarify the object of inquiry for biolinguistics: not speech, communication, or generic sequence processing, but the internal computational system that generates hierarchically structured expressions. Second, I argue that this formal characterization matters for evolutionary explanation, because different conceptions of syntax imply different standards of what must be explained. Third, I suggest that a sufficiently explicit algebraic account of syntax places non-trivial constraints on candidate neural mechanisms. Finally, I consider how recent neurocomputational work begins to transform these constraints into empirically tractable hypotheses, while also noting the speculative and revisable character of the present program.

Elliot Murphy

Vivian L. Smith Department of Neurosurgery, McGovern Medical School, UTHealth, Houston, TX, USA

Neural Processes
AskPDF
Sep 2, 2026

No country for old linguists: LLM-brain alignment underdetermines neural computation

Nastase et al. (2026) argue that large language models (LLMs) may illuminate language processing because both rely on distributed, context-sensitive representations shaped by statistical learning. Their rejection of simple cortical "boxology" is persuasive, and they articulate a strong case for the value of LLM-brain alignment research. The key question is what kind of inference LLM-brain alignment licenses. My claim here will be narrow: representational alignment can in principle constrain mechanistic hypotheses, but it does not by itself identify a mechanism. Nastase et al. acknowledge that an encoding model can capture features represented in neural activity without establishing a shared architecture or algorithm. Yet the authors sometime move from alignment to "shared computational principles" and ultimately to LLMs as mechanistic models of natural language. Indeed, their methodological caveat that alignment does not establish a shared architecture or algorithm sits uneasily with their conclusion that LLMs might instantiate the same computational principles as biological brains and provide a "fully mechanistic model" of language. I discuss what I consider to be problems of logical, causal, and computational underdetermination in Nastase et al.'s (2026) proposal.

Elliot Murphy

Vivian L. Smith Department of Neurosurgery, McGovern Medical School at UTHealth Houston, Houston, Texas, USA

LLM AlignmentNeural Encoding
AskPDF
Mar 31, 2026

Convergent Representations of Linguistic Constructions in Human and Artificial Neural Systems

Understanding how the brain processes linguistic constructions is a central challenge in cognitive neuroscience and linguistics. Recent computational studies show that artificial neural language models spontaneously develop differentiated representations of Argument Structure Constructions (ASCs), generating predictions about when and how construction-level information emerges during processing. The present study tests these predictions in human neural activity using electroencephalography (EEG). Ten native English speakers listened to 200 synthetically generated sentences across four construction types (transitive, ditransitive, caused-motion, resultative) while neural responses were recorded. Analyses using time-frequency methods, feature extraction, and machine learning classification revealed construction-specific neural signatures emerging primarily at sentence-final positions, where argument structure becomes fully disambiguated, and most prominently in the alpha band. Pairwise classification showed reliable differentiation, especially between ditransitive and resultative constructions, while other pairs overlapped. Crucially, the temporal emergence and similarity structure of these effects mirror patterns in recurrent and transformer-based language models, where constructional representations arise during integrative processing stages. These findings support the view that linguistic constructions are neurally encoded as distinct form-meaning mappings, in line with Construction Grammar, and suggest convergence between biological and artificial systems on similar representational solutions. More broadly, this convergence is consistent with the idea that learning systems discover stable regions within an underlying representational landscape - recently termed a Platonic representational space - that constrains the emergence of efficient linguistic abstractions.

Pegah Ramezani, Thomas Kinfe, Andreas Maier +2

Department of English and American Studies, University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Germany · Pattern Recognition Lab, University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Germany · Neuromodulation and Neuroprosthetics, University Hospital Mannheim, University Heidelberg, Germany +2

Neural EncodingComputational Psycholinguistics
AskPDF