The difference between "giving a rose" and "giving a kiss": Sustained neural activity to the light verb construction
- 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 memoryWe 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.…
| Author details: | Eva Wittenberg, Martin Paczynski, Heike WieseGND, Ray Jackendoff, Gina Kuperberg |
|---|---|
| DOI: | https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2014.02.002 |
| ISSN: | 0749-596X |
| ISSN: | 1096-0821 |
| Title of parent work (English): | Journal of memory and language |
| Publisher: | Elsevier |
| Place of publishing: | San Diego |
| Publication type: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Year of first publication: | 2014 |
| Publication year: | 2014 |
| Release date: | 2017/03/27 |
| Tag: | Argument structure; Event-related potential; Light verb constructions; Sentence processing; Sustained negativity; Syntax-semantics interface |
| Volume: | 73 |
| Number of pages: | 12 |
| First page: | 31 |
| Last Page: | 42 |
| Funding institution: | NIMH [R01 MH071635]; Brain and Behavior Research Foundation (NARSAD); Sidney Baer Trust; German Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology |
| Organizational units: | Humanwissenschaftliche Fakultät / Strukturbereich Kognitionswissenschaften / Department Linguistik |
| Peer review: | Referiert |
| Institution name at the time of the publication: | Humanwissenschaftliche Fakultät / Institut für Linguistik / Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft |
