• Treffer 1 von 13
Zurück zur Trefferliste

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.zeige mehrzeige weniger

Metadaten exportieren

Weitere Dienste

Suche bei Google Scholar Statistik - Anzahl der Zugriffe auf das Dokument
Metadaten
Verfasserangaben: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
Titel des übergeordneten Werks (Englisch):Journal of memory and language
Verlag:Elsevier
Verlagsort:San Diego
Publikationstyp:Wissenschaftlicher Artikel
Sprache:Englisch
Jahr der Erstveröffentlichung:2014
Erscheinungsjahr:2014
Datum der Freischaltung:27.03.2017
Freies Schlagwort / Tag:Argument structure; Event-related potential; Light verb constructions; Sentence processing; Sustained negativity; Syntax-semantics interface
Band:73
Seitenanzahl:12
Erste Seite:31
Letzte Seite:42
Fördernde Institution:NIMH [R01 MH071635]; Brain and Behavior Research Foundation (NARSAD); Sidney Baer Trust; German Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology
Organisationseinheiten:Humanwissenschaftliche Fakultät / Strukturbereich Kognitionswissenschaften / Department Linguistik
Peer Review:Referiert
Name der Einrichtung zum Zeitpunkt der Publikation:Humanwissenschaftliche Fakultät / Institut für Linguistik / Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft
Verstanden ✔
Diese Webseite verwendet technisch erforderliche Session-Cookies. Durch die weitere Nutzung der Webseite stimmen Sie diesem zu. Unsere Datenschutzerklärung finden Sie hier.