TY  - JOUR
A1  - Wittenberg, Eva
A1  - Snedeker, Jesse
T1  - It takes two to kiss, but does it take three to give a kiss? Categorization based on thematic roles
JF  - Language, cognition and neuroscience
KW  - events
KW  - argument structure
KW  - conceptualization
KW  - sorting task
KW  - syntax
KW  - semantics
KW  - light-verb constructions
Y1  - 2014
U6  - https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2013.831918
SN  - 2327-3798
SN  - 2327-3801
VL  - 29
IS  - 5
SP  - 635
EP  - 641
PB  - Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group
CY  - Abingdon
ER  - 
TY  - CHAP
A1  - Wittenberg, Eva
A1  - Paczynski, Martin
A1  - Wiese, Heike
A1  - Jackendoff, Ray
A1  - Kuperberg, Gina
T1  - Light verbs make heavy work
T2  - Psychophysiology : journal of the Society for Psychophysiological Research
KW  - sustained negativity
KW  - argument structure
KW  - language erp
Y1  - 2011
SN  - 0048-5772
VL  - 48
IS  - 3
SP  - S105
EP  - S105
PB  - Wiley-Blackwell
CY  - Malden
ER  - 
TY  - JOUR
A1  - Wittenberg, Eva
A1  - Paczynski, Martin
A1  - Wiese, Heike
A1  - Jackendoff, Ray
A1  - Kuperberg, Gina
T1  - The difference between "giving a rose" and "giving a kiss": Sustained neural activity to the light verb construction
JF  - Journal of memory and language
N2  - We used event-related potentials (ERPs) to investigate the neurocognitive mechanisms associated with processing light verb constructions such as "give a kiss". These constructions consist of a semantically underspecified light verb ("give") and an event nominal that contributes most of the meaning and also activates an argument structure of its own ("kiss"). This creates a mismatch between the syntactic constituents and the semantic roles of a sentence. Native speakers read German verb-final sentences that contained light verb constructions (e.g., "Julius gave Anne a kiss"), non-light constructions (e.g., "Julius gave Anne a rose"), and semantically anomalous constructions (e.g., 'Julius gave Anne a conversation"). ERPs were measured at the critical verb, which appeared after all its arguments. Compared to non-light constructions, the light verb constructions evoked a widely distributed, frontally focused, sustained negative-going effect between 500 and 900 ms after verb onset. We interpret this effect as reflecting working memory costs associated with complex semantic processes that establish a shared argument structure in the light verb constructions.
KW  - Event-related potential
KW  - Sentence processing
KW  - Light verb constructions
KW  - Argument structure
KW  - Syntax-semantics interface
KW  - Sustained negativity
Y1  - 2014
U6  - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2014.02.002
SN  - 0749-596X
SN  - 1096-0821
VL  - 73
SP  - 31
EP  - 42
PB  - Elsevier
CY  - San Diego
ER  - 
TY  - THES
A1  - Wittenberg, Eva
T1  - With Light Verb Constructions from Syntax to Concepts
T1  - Mit Funktionsverbgefügen von der Syntax zur konzeptuellen Struktur
N2  - This dissertation uses a common grammatical phenomenon, light verb constructions (LVCs) in English and German, to investigate how syntax-semantics mapping defaults influence the relationships between language processing, representation and conceptualization. LVCs are analyzed as a phenomenon of mismatch in the argument structure. The processing implication of this mismatch are experimentally investigated, using ERPs and a dual task. Data from these experiments point to an increase in working memory. Representational questions are investigated using structural priming. Data from this study suggest that while the syntax of LVCs is not different from other structures’, the semantics and mapping are represented differently. This hypothesis is tested with a new categorization paradigm, which reveals that the conceptual structure that LVC evoke differ in interesting, and predictable, ways from non-mismatching structures’.
N2  - Diese Dissertation untersucht mittels psycho- und neurolinguistischer Experimente, wie deutsche und englische Funktionsverbgefüge (’light verb constructions’) mental repräsentiert und verarbeitet werden.
Funktionsverbgefüge sind Konstruktionen wie einen Kuss geben, in denen die Semantik überwiegend durch die Nominalisierung Kuss geliefert wird, während das Funktionsverb geben lediglich den syntaktischen Rahmen und grammatische Marker, aber nur wenige Bedeutungsaspekte beiträgt.
T3  - Potsdam Cognitive Science Series - 7 
KW  - light verb constructions
KW  - syntax
KW  - semantics
KW  - event-related potential
KW  - priming
KW  - Syntax
KW  - Semantik
KW  - Sprachverarbeitung
KW  - Funktionsverbgefüge
KW  - Priming
Y1  - 2016
U6  - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-82361
SN  - 978-3-86956-329-9
SN  - 2190-4545
SN  - 2190-4553
PB  - Universitätsverlag Potsdam
CY  - Potsdam
ER  -