T), propositional CCs (e.g., because can not conjoin causally unrelated propositions, as in Simply because he has a name, they named him), and correlative CCs (e.g., a member of one particular correlative conjunction pair cannot conjoin with a member of a further pair, as in She either likes him nor hates him). five.1. Final results Excluding CC Dimethylenastron violations involving the gender, number, or particular person of pronouns, frequent nouns, and widespread noun NPs referring to people today, H.M. violated 29 further CCs, versus a imply of 0.25 for the controls (SD = 0.25), a reputable 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 All round H.M. violated three copular complement CCs (see Table four), versus a mean 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 be. (30). H.M.: “Because it is wrong for her to become…” (BPC primarily based on the picture and utterance context: it is incorrect for her to become there: omission of a verb complement or modifier; see Table four for H.M.’s total utterance) H.M.’s issues in conjoining complements with the verb to be weren’t exclusive towards the TLC. Note that H.M. produced remarkably similar uncorrected copular complement omissions on the TLC in (30) and throughout conversational speech in (31), in both cases yielding all round utterances that were incoherent, ungrammatical, and difficult-to-comprehend. (31). H.M. (spontaneous conversation in [53]): “What’s identified out about me will assistance other folks be.” (copular-complement CC violation)Brain Sci. 2013, 3 5.1.2. 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 doesn’t 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 (where the auxiliary do in “doesn’t got” is in error) [54]. (32). H.M.: “She doesn’t got any shoes on…” (BPC: she does not have any shoes on or she hasn’t got any shoes on; see Table 5 for H.M.’s complete utterance) 5.1.3. Violations of Verb-Object CCs Example (33) illustrates a violation of a verb-object CC: H.M.’s “he’s looking to sell” is ungrammatical simply because transitive verbs for instance sell demand an object like it (see Table four for other violations of verb-object CCs). (33). H.M.: “…she’s taking that suit and he wants to take it … and he’s looking to sell.” (BPC based around the picture and utterance context: attempting to sell it; major violation of a verbobject CC; see Table 4 for H.M.’s total utterance) five.1.4. Violations of Modifier-Noun CCs Instance (34) illustrates a violation of a modifier-common noun CC since the adjective scrawny can’t modify inanimate nouns for instance bus except in metaphoric uses including personification [55]. On the other hand, metaphoric use of scrawny is implausible right here mainly because H.M. exhibits special problems with metaphors, performing at likelihood levels and reliably worse than controls in comprehending metaphors around the TLC (see [12]). Furthermore, constant with scrawny as a CC violation, H.M.’s scrawny is erroneous in other strategies: The image for (34) shows two identical buses, among that is farther away or far more distant but not smaller sized than the other (see T.