Verbal and nominal agreement: An fMRI study

The dissociability of lexical retrieval and morphosyntactic processes for nouns and verbs: A functional and anatomoclinical study

“…Difficulties with verb production might affect both lexical retrieval and morphosyntactic processes only when the lesion affects not only prefrontal and lateral temporal regions, necessary for verb naming, but also white matter connections between these regions and the prefrontal areas involved in inflectional processing. Data consistent with this possibility were reported in an fMRI study of agreement (Carreiras, Quiñones, Mancini, Hernández-Cabrera, & Barber, 2015). Involvement of a distributed neural network in verb processing is not surprising.…”

“…In other words, the lesions observed in subjects who make inflectional errors on nouns differ from those observed in the patients with poor noun retrieval but spared noun morphology (EA, Laiacona & Caramazza, 2004;GIZ and RPE), in whom lesions are restricted to the inferomesial portions of the temporal lobe. These observations encourage to argue that noun retrieval involves the temporal lobe (e.g., Shapiro, Moo, & Caramazza, 2006;Longe et al, 2007;Capitani et al, 2009;see Mätzig, Druks, Masterson, & Vigliocco, 2009 for review), and that processing noun inflections requires intact left prefrontal regions, which are part of a frontotemporal network involved in morphosyntactic operations (Miceli et al, 2002;Sahin et al, 2006;Carreiras et al, 2015). In this framework, errorless processing of noun inflections in EA, GIZ and RPE would result from true sparing of morphological processes, and not from Italian noun morphology being too easy to yield a noticeable error rate when damaged.…”

Processing of Subject and Object Case Markers in Turkish

“…Looking at the average durations, it is seen that while grammatical structures are processed in the fastest way, structures containing violations in subject case require the longest time; in other words, when participants do not see the subject-verb agreement, they need more processing time about the syntactic and semantic order of the sentence (Kutas and Hillyard, 1983;Spencer & Zwicky, 1998;Carreiras et al, 2015). In terms of the length of reading time in the field of verb, it is seen that object case violations create more cognitive cost than grammatical condition, whereas object case violations have a lower reading time than subject case violations, in other words, it does not create a cognitive cost as much as subject case violations.…”

“…In the second experiment, it is seen that subject case violation creates more cognitive cost than both object case violation and grammatical condition, while object case violation creates more cognitive cost than grammatical condition in terms of the length of the reading period in the verb. In other words, the participants might need more processing time about the syntactic and semantic order of the sentence when they do not see the subject-verb agreement, (Kutas and Hillyard, 1983;Spencer & Zwicky, 1998;Carreiras et al, 2015). Thus, the participants might also have to process the non-matching subject case besides processing subject-verb non-agreement.…”

Neurolinguistic Research on the Romance Languages

“…Along these lines also the comparison of agreement processes across different syntactic domains produced interesting findings. Using written stimuli, another work on Spanish compared number agreement in nominal (el/*los anillo, theM.SG/theM.PL ringM.SG) and subject-verb (Ella/*Ellas baila, sheF.SG/theyF.PL dances3SG) domains (Carreiras, Quiñones, Mancini, Hernández-Cabrera, & Barber, 2015). Common patterns of activations involving the so-called conflict monitoring system were observed for violations in both nominal and subject-verb contexts.…”