Grammatically relevant and grammatically irrelevant features of verb meaning can be independently impaired

According to the 'grammatically relevant semantic subsystem' hypothesis proposed by Pinker (1989), the meanings of verbs contain two different types of information: (1) a restricted set of semantic features that are visible to grammar and that influence the syntactic argument structure possibilities of verbs; and (2) an open - ended set of idiosyncratic perceptual and conceptual features that are not visible to grammar and that enable verbs to encode all kinds of subtle distinctions involving manner of motion, change of state, and so forth. If these two components of verb meaning reside at different levels of mental representation, as the hypothesis maintains, then it is possible that they could be independently disrupted by brain damage. This paper reports a series of experiments that confirmed this prediction. Three brain - damaged subjects exhibited different performance profiles on two tests that evaluated their knowledge of grammatically relevant and grammatically irrelevant components of verb meaning. 1978JB and 1962RR performed well, but 2011SS performed poorly, on a word - picture matching test that required them to discriminate between verb triplets that differed only with respect to subtle, grammatically irrelevant perceptual and conceptual features–e.g., spill–pour–sprinkle. In contrast, 1978JB and 1962RR performed poorly, but 2011SS performed well, on a second test that required them to judge the grammaticality of sentences containing the very same verbs–e.g., Sam spilled beer on his pants vs. *Sam spilled his pants with beer. Linguistic analyses have shown that the grammaticality of these sentences depends on the compatibility between certain semantic features of the verbs and the inherent semantic content of the grammatical constructions. Finally, all of the subjects performed well on a third test that required them to judge the grammaticality of sentences that have purely syntactic violations. Taken together, these results suggest that 1978JB and 1962RR have a disorder that selectively involves the level of grammatically relevant semantic structure, whereas 2011SS has a disorder that selectively involves grammatically irrelevant aspects of verb meaning. This study therefore supports the hypothesis that grammatically relevant and grammatically irrelevant components of verb meaning are segregated in the mind/ brain.

[1]  M. Schwartz,et al.  Semantic Factors in Verb Retrieval: An Effect of Complexity , 1998, Brain and Language.

[2]  Laura A. Michaelis,et al.  TOWARD A CONSTRUCTION-BASED THEORY OF LANGUAGE FUNCTION : THE CASE OF NOMINAL EXTRAPOSITION , 1996 .

[3]  Dan I. Slobin,et al.  The origins of grammaticizable notions: beyond the individual mind , 2014 .

[4]  Michelle A. Hollander,et al.  Affectedness and direct objects: The role of lexical semantics in the acquisition of verb argument structure , 1991, Cognition.

[5]  Steven Pinker,et al.  Language learnability and language development , 1985 .

[6]  John Lyons,et al.  语义学引论 = Linguistic Semantics , 2000 .

[7]  Shula Chiat,et al.  Calling a salad a federation: An investigation of semantic jargon. Part 2—verbs , 1996, Journal of Neurolinguistics.

[8]  M. R. Manzini Learnability and Cognition , 1991 .

[9]  Daniel Tranel,et al.  Verb Retrieval in Brain-Damaged Subjects: 1. Analysis of Stimulus, Lexical, and Conceptual Factors , 2000, Brain and Language.

[10]  A. N. Haendiges,et al.  Verb Retrieval in Aphasia. 1. Characterizing Single Word Impairments , 1997, Brain and Language.

[11]  Leonard Talmy,et al.  The relation of grammar to cognition , 1986 .

[12]  S. Breedin Reversal of the concreteness effect in a patient with semantic dementia , 1994 .

[13]  Michelle A. Hollander,et al.  Syntax and semantics in the acquisition of locative verbs , 1991, Journal of Child Language.

[14]  R. Burchfield Frequency Analysis of English Usage: Lexicon and Grammar. By W. Nelson Francis and Henry Kučera with the assistance of Andrew W. Mackie. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 1982. x + 561 , 1985 .

[15]  D. Slobin Crosslinguistic Evidence for the Language-making Capacity , 1985 .

[16]  R. Langacker Foundations of cognitive grammar , 1983 .

[17]  Paul Kay,et al.  Words and the grammar of context , 1997, CSLI lecture notes series.

[18]  W. Nelson Francis,et al.  FREQUENCY ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH USAGE: LEXICON AND GRAMMAR , 1983 .

[19]  H. Damasio Human Brain Anatomy in Computerized Images , 1995 .

[20]  Randy J. LaPolla,et al.  Syntax: Structure, Meaning, and Function , 1999 .

[21]  Robert Bley-Vroman,et al.  Road and Narrow Constraints on the English Dative Alternation: Some Fundamental Differences Between Native Speakers and Foreign Language Learners , 1992 .

[22]  Leonard Talmy,et al.  How Language Structures Space , 1983 .

[23]  J. Fodor,et al.  The Psychology of Language , 1974 .

[24]  Marjolyn Verspoor,et al.  Lexical and syntactical constructions and the construction of meaning : proceedings of the bi-annual ICLA meeting in Albuquerque, July 1995 , 1997 .

[25]  Jane Marshall,et al.  Calling a salad a federation: An investigation of semantic jargon. Part 1—nouns , 1996, Journal of Neurolinguistics.

[26]  L. Talmy Lexicalisation patterns: semantic structure in lexical forms , 1985 .

[27]  Verb retrieval in isolation and sentence context in Broca's aphasics : The effect of transitivity , 1997 .

[28]  Y.R.M. Bastiaanse,et al.  How selective are selective word class deficits? Two case studies of action and object naming , 1998 .

[29]  Leonard Talmy,et al.  Path to Realization: A Typology of Event Conflation , 1991 .

[30]  David Caplan,et al.  Sentence Production by Aphasic Patients in a Constrained Task , 1998, Brain and Language.

[31]  Ray Jackendoff TWISTIN' THE NIGHT AWAY , 1997 .

[32]  Barbara B. Levin,et al.  English verb classes and alternations , 1993 .

[33]  Anna Wierzbicka The semantics of grammar , 1988 .

[34]  C. Fillmore,et al.  Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What's X doing Y? construction , 1999 .

[35]  D. Neary Lesion Analysis in Neuropsychology , 1990 .

[36]  D. Bickerton The roots of language , 2016 .

[37]  S. T. Rosen,et al.  Events and verb classification , 1996 .

[38]  Randi C. Martin,et al.  Patterns of Verb Impairment in Aphasia: An Analysis of Four Cases. , 1996, Cognitive neuropsychology.

[39]  Malka Rappaport Hovav,et al.  Wiping the slate clean: A lexical semantic exploration , 1991, Cognition.

[40]  Daniel Tranel,et al.  Patterns of dissociation in the processing of verb meanings in brain-damaged subjects , 2001 .

[41]  Ray Jackendoff,et al.  The Architecture of the Language Faculty , 1996 .

[42]  Sally Byng,et al.  Sentence processing deficits: Theory and therapy , 1988 .

[43]  S. Schneider,et al.  Agrammatic and non-brain-damaged subjects' verb and verb argument structure production , 1997 .

[44]  Roelien Bastiaanse,et al.  The influence of instrumentality and transitivity on action naming in Broca's and anemic aphasia , 1996 .

[45]  Ursula Brinkmann The locative alternation in German , 1997 .

[46]  R. J. Frank,et al.  Three-dimensional in vivo mapping of brain lesions in humans. , 1992, Archives of neurology.

[47]  Michelle A. Hollander,et al.  The learnability and acquisition of the dative alternation , 1989 .