T), propositional CCs (e.g., for the reason that cannot conjoin causally unrelated propositions, as in

T), propositional CCs (e.g., for the reason that cannot conjoin causally unrelated propositions, as in Because he includes a name, they named him), and correlative CCs (e.g., a member of 1 correlative conjunction pair can’t conjoin using a member of yet another pair, as in She either likes him nor hates him). five.1. Benefits Excluding CC violations involving the gender, number, or individual of pronouns, prevalent nouns, and frequent noun NPs referring to individuals, H.M. violated 29 added CCs, versus a mean of 0.25 for the controls (SD = 0.25), a reliable 114 SD distinction. Subsequent sections report separate analyses of CC violations for verb-modifier CCs, verb-complement CCs, auxiliary-main verb CCs, verb-object CCs, modifier-noun CCs, subject-verb CCs, and correlative CCs. 5.1.1. CC Violations Involving Verb Complements or Modifiers General H.M. violated 3 copular complement CCs (see Table 4), versus a imply of 0.0 for the controls (SD = 0). Example (30) illustrates a single such CC violation involving the verb to become: H.M.’s “for her to be” in (30) is ungrammatical, reflecting uncorrected omission of a copular complement for the verb to become. (30). H.M.: “Because it really is wrong for her to become…” (BPC based on the image and utterance context: it’s incorrect for her to become there: omission of a verb complement or modifier; see Table 4 for H.M.’s comprehensive utterance) H.M.’s difficulties in conjoining complements with all the verb to be were not unique for the TLC. Note that H.M. produced remarkably similar uncorrected copular complement omissions on the TLC in (30) and during conversational speech in (31), in each situations yielding all round utterances that have been incoherent, ungrammatical, and difficult-to-comprehend. (31). H.M. (spontaneous conversation in [53]): “What’s found out about me will aid other individuals be.” (copular-complement CC violation)Brain Sci. 2013, three 5.1.two. Violations of Auxiliary-Main Verb CCsExample (32) illustrates a violation of an auxiliary-main verb CC, with two candidates tied for BPC: PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21338877 she does not have any footwear on (exactly where the verb got in H.M.’s “doesn’t got” is in error), and she hasn’t got any footwear on (exactly where the auxiliary do in “doesn’t got” is in error) [54]. (32). H.M.: “She doesn’t got any footwear on…” (BPC: she doesn’t have any shoes on or she hasn’t got any footwear on; see Table five for H.M.’s full utterance) five.1.three. Violations of Verb-Object CCs Example (33) illustrates a violation of a verb-object CC: H.M.’s “he’s trying to sell” is ungrammatical mainly because transitive verbs such as sell demand an object for example it (see Table 4 for other violations of verb-object CCs). (33). H.M.: “…she’s taking that suit and he wants to take it … and he’s attempting to sell.” (BPC primarily based on the image and utterance context: attempting to sell it; big violation of a verbobject CC; see Table 4 for H.M.’s comprehensive utterance) five.1.four. Violations of Modifier-Noun CCs Example (34) illustrates a violation of a modifier-common noun CC since the BMY 41606 price adjective scrawny can’t modify inanimate nouns such as bus except in metaphoric uses including personification [55]. Nevertheless, metaphoric use of scrawny is implausible here mainly because H.M. exhibits special issues with metaphors, performing at opportunity levels and reliably worse than controls in comprehending metaphors on the TLC (see [12]). Additionally, constant with scrawny as a CC violation, H.M.’s scrawny is erroneous in other methods: The picture for (34) shows two identical buses, one of which is farther away or far more distant but not smaller sized than the other (see T.