The difference between “giving a rose” and “giving a kiss”: Sustained neural activity to the light verb construction

Wittenberg, Eva; Paczynski, Martin; Wiese, Heike; Jackendoff, Ray; Kuperberg, Gina R.

doi:10.1016/j.jml.2014.02.002

Cited by 61 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this sense, the relatively delayed late anterior negativity effect in this study may be a more direct reflection of narrative or event structural surprisal/prediction error. This interpretation would be consistent with recent reports of late onset anterior negativities to words that match (versus mismatch) one of two possible event structures that are anticipated in certain sentence and discourse contexts (Baggio, van Lambalgen, & Hagoort, 2008; Paczynski, Jackendoff, & Kuperberg, 2014; Wittenberg, Paczynski, Wiese, Jackendoff, & Kuperberg, 2014; Wlotko & Federmeier, 2012). …”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

The grammar of visual narrative: Neural evidence for constituent structure in sequential image comprehension

et al. 2014

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Constituent structure has long been established as a central feature of human language. Analogous to how syntax organizes words in sentences, a narrative grammar organizes sequential images into hierarchic constituents. Here we show that the brain draws upon this constituent structure to comprehend wordless visual narratives. We recorded neural responses as participants viewed sequences of visual images (comics strips) in which blank images either disrupted individual narrative constituents or fell at natural constituent boundaries. A disruption of either the first or the second narrative constituent produced a left-lateralized anterior negativity effect between 500-700ms. Disruption of the second constituent also elicited a posteriorly-distributed positivity (P600) effect. These neural responses are similar to those associated with structural violations in language and music. These findings provide evidence that comprehenders use a narrative structure to comprehend visual sequences and that the brain engages similar neurocognitive mechanisms to build structure across multiple domains.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

The grammar of visual narrative: Neural evidence for constituent structure in sequential image comprehension

et al. 2014

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Both the different-syntax and different-semantics accounts, however, would strain to explain such a mechanism: Light verb constructions are extremely frequent, unlike the garden-path sentences used in the shallow parsing literature, and adults have ample practice in using and comprehending these structures (Piñango et al, 2006; Wittenberg et al, 2014). …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigating Thematic Roles through Implicit Learning: Evidence from Light Verb Constructions

2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The syntactic structure of a sentence is usually a strong predictor of its meaning: Each argument noun phrase (i.e., Subject and Object) should map onto exactly one thematic role (i.e., Agent and Patient, respectively). Some constructions, however, are exceptions to this pattern. This paper investigates how the syntactic structure of an utterance contributes to its construal, using ditransitive English light verb constructions, such as “Nils gave a hug to his brother,” as an example of such mismatches: Hugging is a two-role event, but the ditransitive syntactic structure suggests a three-role event. Data from an eye-tracking experiment and behavioral categorization data reveal that listeners learn to categorize sentences according to the number of thematic roles they convey, independent of their syntax. Light verb constructions, however, seem to form a category of their own, in which the syntactic structure leads listeners down an initial incorrect assignment of thematic roles, from which they only partly recover. These results suggest an automatic influence of syntactic argument structure on semantic interpretation and event construal, even in highly frequent constructions.

show abstract

“…being interrupted by coffee spilling on the paper). And, most recently our group (Wittenberg et al, 2014) observed a late, sustained widely-distributed, but frontally focused, negativity from 500ms following verbs in light verb constructions (e.g. “Julius gave Anne a kiss”)—another type of complex event structure in which the subject of the sentence acts both as the Agent of the verb and of the direct object (so-called argument sharing, cf.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Here, the non-completion of the letter-writing event is again inferred, but not explicitly stated. And, third, we (Wittenberg, Paczynski, Wiese, Jackendoff, & Kuperberg, 2014) recently observed a sustained negativity effect starting at 500ms after the onset of verbs in light verb constructions (e.g. original German: “Als die Stewardess eine Ansage machte …”; English translation: “When the stewardess made an announcement…”).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 92%

When Events Change Their Nature: The Neurocognitive Mechanisms Underlying Aspectual Coercion

Paczynski

Jackendoff

Kuperberg

2014

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The verb ‘pounce’ describes a single, near-instantaneous event. Yet, we easily understand that, “For several minutes the cat pounced…” describes a situation in which multiple pounces occurred, even though this interpretation is not overtly specified by the sentence’s syntactic structure or by any of its individual words—a phenomenon known as ‘aspectual coercion’. Previous psycholinguistic studies have reported processing costs in association with aspectual coercion, but the neurocognitive mechanisms giving rise to these costs remain contentious. Additionally, there is some controversy about whether readers commit to a full interpretation of the event when the aspectual information becomes available, or whether they leave it temporarily underspecified until later in the sentence. Using event-related potentials (ERPs), we addressed these questions in a design that fully crossed context type (punctive, durative, frequentative) with verb type (punctive, durative). We found a late, sustained negativity to punctive verbs in durative contexts, but not in frequentative (e.g. explicitly iterative) contexts. This effect was distinct from the N400 in both its time course and scalp distribution, suggesting that it reflected a different underlying neurocognitive mechanism. We also found that ERPs to durative verbs were unaffected by context type. Together, our results provide strong evidence that neural activity associated with aspectual coercion is driven by the engagement of a morphosyntactically unrealized semantic operator rather than by violations of real-world knowledge, more general shifts in event representation, or event iterativity itself. More generally, our results add to a growing body of evidence that a set of late-onset sustained negativities reflect elaborative semantic processing that goes beyond simply combining the meaning of individual words with syntactic structure to arrive at a final representation of meaning.

show abstract

The difference between “giving a rose” and “giving a kiss”: Sustained neural activity to the light verb construction

Cited by 61 publications

References 51 publications

The grammar of visual narrative: Neural evidence for constituent structure in sequential image comprehension

The grammar of visual narrative: Neural evidence for constituent structure in sequential image comprehension

Investigating Thematic Roles through Implicit Learning: Evidence from Light Verb Constructions

When Events Change Their Nature: The Neurocognitive Mechanisms Underlying Aspectual Coercion

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About