T), propositional CCs (e.g., due to the fact can not conjoin Tenacissoside H causally unrelated propositions, as in Due to the fact he includes a name, they named him), and correlative CCs (e.g., a member of a single correlative conjunction pair cannot conjoin using a member of a further pair, as in She either likes him nor hates him). 5.1. Results Excluding CC violations involving the gender, number, or individual of pronouns, popular nouns, and popular noun NPs referring to people, H.M. violated 29 extra CCs, versus a imply of 0.25 for the controls (SD = 0.25), a trustworthy 114 SD difference. 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 4), versus a mean of 0.0 for the controls (SD = 0). Example (30) illustrates one particular 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 incorrect for her to become…” (BPC primarily based around 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 comprehensive utterance) H.M.’s issues in conjoining complements with the verb to become were not distinctive for the TLC. Note that H.M. made remarkably similar uncorrected copular complement omissions around the TLC in (30) and for the duration of conversational speech in (31), in each cases yielding all round utterances that have been incoherent, ungrammatical, and difficult-to-comprehend. (31). H.M. (spontaneous conversation in [53]): “What’s identified out about me will support others be.” (copular-complement CC violation)Brain Sci. 2013, 3 five.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 shoes on (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 does not got any footwear on…” (BPC: she does not have any shoes on or she hasn’t got any footwear on; see Table 5 for H.M.’s full utterance) 5.1.3. Violations of Verb-Object CCs Example (33) illustrates a violation of a verb-object CC: H.M.’s “he’s wanting to sell” is ungrammatical for the reason that transitive verbs which include sell need an object including it (see Table four for other violations of verb-object CCs). (33). H.M.: “…she’s taking that suit and he desires to take it … and he’s wanting to sell.” (BPC based on the picture and utterance context: trying to sell it; key violation of a verbobject CC; see Table four for H.M.’s full utterance) 5.1.4. Violations of Modifier-Noun CCs Example (34) illustrates a violation of a modifier-common noun CC because the adjective scrawny cannot modify inanimate nouns which include bus except in metaphoric makes use of which include personification [55]. Nonetheless, metaphoric use of scrawny is implausible right here mainly because H.M. exhibits specific problems with metaphors, performing at chance 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 techniques: The picture for (34) shows two identical buses, one of which can be farther away or a lot more distant but not smaller than the other (see T.