DOCSLIB.ORG

University of Florida Thesis Or Dissertation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
University of Florida Thesis Or Dissertation ADPOSITIONS IN DISTRIBUTED MORPHOLOGY: THE NATURE OF √ROOTS AND CATEGORIAL HEADS By ROBERT JOEL DEACON A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2014 1 © 2014 Robert Joel Deacon 2 To my Beautiful Wife Family and Friends May God Keep and Bless you In all Ways of Life 3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS If the wisdom of the east and west must collide then let it do so in complementary progression. We may then know that what is old is new and new old: “what has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9 NIV). That is we do not ever learn anything new but rather remember what has been forgotten (Socrates in Plato’s writings). With every restatement, we discover/remember a little more of how and why things are. I want to thank all those who have helped me through this journey: my parents Robert and Kathrin Deacon, my wife Yukari Nakamura-Deacon, my daughter, who will be joining us soon, and the rest of my family (you know who you are). Without your support, I would not have had the will to press forward. I want to give thanks to my committee members Dr. Brent Henderson, Dr. Youssef Haddad, Dr. Fiona McLaughlin and Dr. Ozlem Yilmaz. This would not have been possible without your wisdom and guidance. I also want to give special thanks to my advisor and Chair Dr. Brent Henderson for guiding, encouraging, and helping to shape the ideas presented here. This would not have been possible without him. Special thanks also to Dr. Youssef Haddad who likewise joined this project early, offering encouragement and insightful criticism. I would not have examined things as deeply without him. I want to also thank my friends and colleagues that I spent time with in discussion, debate and foolishness: Sean and Wi-young (Zoe) Witty; Tyler McPeek; Dong-yi Lin; Lee Ballard; Jimmy Harnsberger; Christian Betzen; Demetris Athienitis; Laura Dawidziuk; Rachel Organes; Jules Gliesche; Sherry Tyrrell Gliesche; Andrew Wilson; Sean Park; Aazam Feiz; Yasuo Uotate; Marc Mathews … thank you! 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................. 4 LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................... 10 LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................ 11 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND TERMS ..................................................................... 12 ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................... 14 CHAPTER 1 ADPOSITIONS AND CATEGORIZATION .............................................................. 15 1.1 Overview ........................................................................................................... 15 1.2 Research Questions ......................................................................................... 19 1.3 The Lexical Category Dilemma ......................................................................... 21 1.3.1 Response to the Lexical Category Dilemma ............................................ 22 1.3.2 Functional and Lexical Categories .......................................................... 23 1.4 The Category Adposition .................................................................................. 25 1.4.1 Traditional Methods for Classifying Adpositions ...................................... 28 1.4.2 Adpositions and Semi-Lexicality .............................................................. 38 1.5 Unifying Adpositional Elements ........................................................................ 40 1.5.1 Syntactic Distribution and Function ......................................................... 41 1.5.2 Adpositional Stacking .............................................................................. 46 1.6 Semantic-Syntactic Function: An Adpositional Unifying Feature ...................... 48 1.6.1 Semantic Function: Transitive Adpositions .............................................. 49 1.6.2 Semantic Function: Additional Meanings ................................................. 51 1.7 Particles and Prepositions ................................................................................ 54 1.7.1 Particles and Figures ............................................................................... 55 1.7.2 Semantic Function: Intransitive Adpositions ............................................ 59 1.7.3 Directional Particles and Results ............................................................. 62 1.7.4 Semantic Function and Stacking ............................................................. 63 1.7.5 Where Adpositions Stand ........................................................................ 66 1.8 Concluding Remarks ......................................................................................... 67 2 DISTRIBUTED MORPHOLOGY: THE LEXICAL FUNCTIONAL DISTINCTION .... 69 2.1 Distributed Morphology ..................................................................................... 69 2.2 The Lexicon ...................................................................................................... 70 2.2.1 The Traditional Lexicon ........................................................................... 70 2.2.2The Lexicon of DM ................................................................................... 75 2.3 The Vocabulary Insertion Mechanisms of DM .................................................. 78 2.3.1 Late Insertion ........................................................................................... 78 5 2.3.2 Associated and Contextual Features ....................................................... 79 2.3.3 Underspecification ................................................................................... 80 2.3.4 The Subset Principle ............................................................................... 81 2.4. L and F Morphemes and Categorial Heads ..................................................... 82 2.4.1 L and F Morphemes and the Derivation .................................................. 83 2.4.2 The Categorial Heads of DM ................................................................... 84 2.5 L and F Morphemes and Semi-Lexical Categories ........................................... 85 2.5.1 L and F Morphemes and Adpositions ...................................................... 85 2.5.2 Adpositions in DM.................................................................................... 86 2.6 Concluding Remarks ......................................................................................... 87 3 √ROOTS, ENCYCLOPEDIC KNOWLEDGE, AND DISTRIBUTED MORPHOLOGY ...................................................................................................... 89 3.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 89 3.2 Defining the Term √Root ................................................................................... 91 3.3 List A: The Features of a √Root in List A .......................................................... 92 3.3.1 Theoretical Reasons to Associate √Roots with no Features in List A ...... 94 3.3.2 Identifying √Roots: Empirical Reason to not List √Roots with Features ... 96 3.4 √Root Categorization ...................................................................................... 102 3.4.1 Primary Merge: Featureless √Roots entering the Syntax ...................... 102 3.4.2 Special Meanings: Inner vs. Outer Layers ............................................. 105 3.5 Associating √Roots in List A with Features ..................................................... 109 3.5.1 Associating √Roots in List A with Phonological and Class Features ..... 109 3.5.2 Reasons to Associate √Roots in List A with Semantic-Syntactic Features ...................................................................................................... 113 3.6 Categorial Gaps: Limitations on √Roots .......................................................... 116 3.6.1 Categorial Gaps: Accidental Gaps ........................................................ 117 3.6.2 Categorial Gaps: Allomorphy and Gaps ................................................ 121 3.6.3 Categorial Gaps: Possible Limitations on √Roots .................................. 123 3.7 Features vs. No Features ............................................................................... 126 3.7.1 No Features are Optimal ....................................................................... 127 3.7.2 Indices ................................................................................................... 132 3.7.3 Contextual Features .............................................................................. 134 3.7.4 Contextual Features versus Indices ...................................................... 136 3.8 The Encyclopedia ........................................................................................... 138 3.9 Early Insertion and Late Insertion ................................................................... 139 3.10 Concluding Remarks ..................................................................................... 140 4 ADPOSTIONAL FORMS IN ENGLISH AND MANDARIN
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 1 the Influence of Cognitive Factors on Category-Specific Phonology
    The Influence of Cognitive Factors on Category-Specific Phonology Jonathan Manker University of California, Berkeley A growing body of literature has documented an array of phonological patterns--- either static inventories or active rules--- which are sensitive to the grammatical category of the words they govern. Here I consider grammatical categories as including both syntactic classes such as nouns, verbs, and adjectives, and broad classes such as functional and content morphemes. A parallel body of literature has shown psycholinguistic and neurological differences in how different grammatical categories are treated. These independent observations in both the phonological and cognitive literature suggest a currently unexplored question: Are the observed category-specific phonological asymmetries the reflection of asymmetries in the mental organization or processing of these categories? A review of the literature reveals little solid evidence that there are either innate biases in category-specific phonology or that categories form neighborhoods that facilitate the spread of phonological patterns in the lexicon, when other possible factors, such as syntax and semantics, are considered. However, observations from the dual-stream model of speech perception suggest there may be emergent differences in how more predictable, functional categories are processed as opposed to less predictable, content categories. 1. Introduction In recent decades, linguists have begun to explore how many aspects of grammar interact with phonological patterns in language. In particular, studies coming from a wide range of approaches have documented and analyzed the effect of grammatical categories on sound patterns. Here I will use the term grammatical categories liberally to include classes based on syntactic function (nouns, verbs, adpositions, determiners, etc.), and the broader classes including content (nouns, verbs, adjectives) and functional morphemes (determiners, prepositions, inflectional affixes, etc.).
    [Show full text]
  • The Post-Syntactic Morphology of the Albanian Pre-Posed Article: Evidence for Distributed Morphology
    The Post-Syntactic Morphology of the Albanian Pre-Posed Article: Evidence for Distributed Morphology Jochen Trommer Institut f¨urSemantische Informationsverarbeitung Universit¨atOsnabr¨uck D-49069 Osnabr¨uck Abstract The so-called "preposed article" (PA) is a functional morpheme that plays a central role in the morphosyntax of Albanian DPs but is poorly understood theoretically. In this paper I present an analysis of PAs morphology along the lines of Distributed Morphology (DM; Halle and Marantz, 1993). PA is taken to be a post-syntactically inserted agreement morpheme. It is argued that a correct account of the in- sertion contexts of PA and of its allomorphy presupposes reference to surface syntactic configurations thus supporting the conceptual frame- work of DM. The claim that PA is in certain instances a constitutive element of word formation (cf. e.g. Buchholz and Fiedler, 1987) is rejected. 1 Some Basic Empirical Facts 1.1 Occurrence The Albanian Preposed Article (PA) mainly occurs in two contexts1. It marks a dative DP as possessor of a complex DP and it occurs with most adjectives used attributively or predicatively: 1Besides other noun-modifying functional words (possessive pronouns, ordinal numbers, etc.) it also occurs with certain relative pronouns and nouns. For a more complete overview see (Buchholz and Fiedler, 1987, pg. 199) 1 (1) a. klas-a e kapitalist¨e-ve class-def PA capitalists-dat `The class of capitalists' b. vajz-a e bukur girl-def PA nice `the nice girl' c. vajz-a ¨esht¨e e bukur girl-def is PA nice `the girl is nice' While it functions as a grammatical marker in its first use, since it occurs with possessors perfectly regularly , and constitutes the only overt difference between dative verb complements and possessors, (2) a.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter Iv Research Finding Ii Types of Free and Bound
    98 CHAPTER IV RESEARCH FINDING II TYPES OF FREE AND BOUND MORPHEMES USED IN THE NEWS COLUMN OF THE JAKARTA POST ON TUESDAY EDITION VOL.31 APRIL 8, 2014 4.1 Theory of types of free morphemes and bound morphemes 4.1.1. Types of free morphemes Free morphemes are the morphemes that can stand alone as a word. According to George Yule (2006 : 63), he stated that free morphemes is the morphemes that can stand by themselves as single word, for example; cat, open, tour, in, them, because, when, etc. The morphemes can generally be identified as the set of separate english word forms such as basic nouns, adjectives, verbs, etc. There are two types of free morphemes, are they open class words and close class words. According to George Yule (2006 : 64), he stated that free morphemes divided into two categories, that are lexical morphemes and functional morphemes. These free morpheme are called lexical morphemes, such as nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs. some example are: girl (noun), man (noun), house (noun), tiger(noun), sad (adjective), long (adjective), open (verb), look (verb), follow (verb), break (verb). We can add new lexical morphemes to the language rather easily, so they are treated as an ‘open’ class of words. Other types of free morphemes are called functional morphemes, for example; and, but, when, because, on, near, above, in, the, that, it, them. This set consists largely of the funtional words in the language such as conjunctions, prepositions, articles, and pronouns. Because we almost never add new functional morpheme to the language, they are described as a ‘closed’ class of words.
    [Show full text]
  • Functional Categories and Maturation: The
    FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES AND MATURATION: THE PREFUNCTIONAL STAGE OF LANGUAGE ACQUISITION Ianthi-Maria Tsimpli Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Ph.D. University College London M ay 1992 l ProQuest Number: 10610950 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a com plete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. uest ProQuest 10610950 Published by ProQuest LLC(2017). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States C ode Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346 For Alexia ABSTRACT The aim of this thesis is to provide a theory of language acquisition within the Principles and Parameters framework of Generative Grammar. In Chapter 1 ,1 outline the syntactic theory I adopt which assumes that functional categories determine crosslinguistic variation in terms of parameterisation. In the model of the grammar presented, the set of functional categories is argued to constitute an independent module in the Language Faculty, the Functional Module. This is also referred to as the UG lexicon on the ground that it consists of categories that belong to the grammar proper. Substantive categories are assumed to be included in the Mental lexicon which is part of an independent module of the mind/brain.
    [Show full text]
  • The Phonology of Possession
    Piggott, Glyne; Lisa Travis; Heather Newell The Phonology of Possession The first goal of this talk is to demonstrate that phonological distinctions between Inalienable (INAL) and Alienable (AL) constructions in synthetic possessives are remarkably consistent cross- linguistically. In AL constructions, the marker of agreement (AGRPOSS) with the possessor (POSS) that appears on the possessed noun has the properties of a clitic; it is phonologically and morphologically ‘distant’ from the noun. In INAL constructions, on the other hand, these markers have a tendency to behave like true affixes; they are inseparable from the noun and are phonologically ‘close’. This morpho-syntactic closeness is widely discussed in the syntactic literature as being due to a featural specification ([+relational], following Barker 1995) on the INAL noun, but the parallel phonological closeness has received little attention in the phonological literature. The proposed [+rel] feature on the INAL noun entails that it must itself enter into a relationship with a POSS argument, while an AL noun’s status with POSS must be mediated by a functional morpheme, F (null or overt). Examples of this contrast will be offered from languages such as (1) Ojibwe (Eastern Algonquian), (2) Nvikh (isolate/Paleosiberian), (3) Akan (Niger- Congo), and languages such as Mangap-Mbula (Oceanic), Lango (Nilotic), Cupeño (Uto-Aztec) and Nanti (Arawakan). (1) a. no:komis 'my grandmother' b. nidogima:m ‘my leader’ ni-o:komis 1P-grandmother ni-o:gima:-im 1P-leader-POSS’ (2) a. phnaχ ‘one’s own eyes’ b. phinaχ ‘one’s own bed’ h h h p -naχ 1P-eyes p -!-naχ p -POSS-naχ (3) a.
    [Show full text]
  • Some Affixes Are Roots, Others Are Heads
    Nat Lang Linguist Theory (2018) 36:45–84 DOI 10.1007/s11049-017-9372-1 Some affixes are roots, others are heads Ava Creemers1 · Jan Don2 · Paula Fenger3 Received: 20 May 2014 / Accepted: 22 March 2017 / Published online: 5 July 2017 © The Author(s) 2017. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com Abstract A recent debate in the morphological literature concerns the status of derivational affixes. While some linguists (Marantz 1997, 2001; Marvin 2003) con- sider derivational affixes a type of functional morpheme that realizes a categorial head, others (Lowenstamm 2015; De Belder 2011) argue that derivational affixes are roots. Our proposal, which finds its empirical basis in a study of Dutch derivational affixes, takes a middle position. We argue that there are two types of derivational affixes: some that are roots (i.e. lexical morphemes) and others that are categorial heads (i.e. functional morphemes). Affixes that are roots show ‘flexible’ categorial behavior, are subject to ‘lexical’ phonological rules, and may trigger idiosyncratic meanings. Affixes that realize categorial heads, on the other hand, are categorially rigid, do not trigger ‘lexical’ phonological rules nor allow for idiosyncrasies in their interpretation. Keywords Derivational affixes · Distributed morphology · Stress-behavior · Categorial flexibility · Phasal spell-out B J. Don [email protected] A. Creemers [email protected] P. Fenger [email protected] 1 Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania, 3401-C Walnut Street, Suite 300, C Wing, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6228, USA 2 Department of Dutch Linguistics, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Spuistraat 134, 1012 VB Amsterdam, The Netherlands 3 University of Connecticut, Department of Linguistics, 365 Fairfield Way, Unit-1145, Room 368, Storss, CT, 06269, USA 46 A.
    [Show full text]
  • Extended Exponence by Enrichment: Argument Encoding in German, Archi, and Timucua
    Extended Exponence by Enrichment: Argument Encoding in German, Archi, and Timucua Gereon Muller¨ ∗ May 5, 2006 1 Introduction This paper is concerned with a principled approach to cases of extended (or multiple) exponence, as postulated in Matthews (1972, 82) for Greek verb in- flection (perfect forms in particular), and in Matthews (1974, 149) for English verb inflection (among other phenomena). Extended exponence characterizes those cases of morphological realization where a single morpho-syntactic prop- erty seems to be expressed by more than one exponent (i.e., inflection marker, in the cases to be considered here). Extended exponence raises a problem in Distributed Morphology. The solution that I propose centers around a new type of rule that applies to syntactic operations before morphological realiza- tion takes place, and that I call enrichment. Enrichment rules are complemen- tary to well-established impoverishment rules. They make it possible to account for extended exponence without invoking a concept of secondary exponence via contextual features. The empirical evidence that I discuss comes mainly from the interaction of argument encoding and number/person marking in German, Archi, and Timucua (with case-marking of nouns in the first two cases, and agreement morphology on verbs in the latter), but I also address verb inflection in Tamazight Berber. Let me begin by introducing the phenomenon of extended exponence on the basis of case-marked plural forms of nouns in German. As shown in (1), plural can be marked twice on nouns in dative (dat) contexts in German (see, e.g., Eisenberg (2000), Wiese (2000)). The inflected nouns in (1-ac) involve the co- occurrence of a plural marker (er in (1-a), which is common for neuter stems such as Kind (`child'), and e in (1-c), which is the unmarked plural marker for masculine stems like Tisch (`table')), and a dat plural marker n.
    [Show full text]
  • Lexical and Functional Decomposition in Syntax: a View from Phonology
    Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 47(2), 2011, pp. 399–425 © School of English, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland doi:10.2478/psicl-2011-0023 LEXICAL AND FUNCTIONAL DECOMPOSITION IN SYNTAX: A VIEW FROM PHONOLOGY DRAGANA ŠURKALOVIĆ Center for Advanced Study in Theoretical Linguistics (CASTL), University of Tromsø [email protected] ABSTRACT In recent years many lexical elements in the syntactic tree have been decomposed into formal features forming part of the functional sequence. This paper explores the effects of this change on the syntax–phonology interface, addressing two problems for language modularity and proposing that the Lexicon be the locus of communication between the two modules. The first issue is the sensitivity of prosody to edges of syntactic constitu- ents and to lexical elements and projections but not to functional ones (cf. Selkirk 1995; Truckenbrodt 1999, 2007 inter alia). Lexicon subcategorisation is offered as the solution (cf. Bye 2006; Paster 2005). The second issue is the prosodic marking of Information Structure. In Prosodic Phonology, constraints (Align-F, Stress-Focus) “see” these syntac- tic features, which is undesirable if modularity is to be maintained. This paper uses the Nanosyntactic view that features are merged into the tree individually, and suggests that Lexical entries for e.g. F and CT features in English are suprasegmental affixes pairing a H* tone with F feature or a L+H*L-H% contour with a CT feature. KEYWORDS : Modularity; syntax–phonology interface; prosody; information structure; lexicon. 1. Introduction The term “modularity” as it is used in this paper refers to the notion that the language computation system consists of three independent modules, syntax, phonology and semantics.
    [Show full text]
  • Analytic and Synthetic: Typological Change in Varieties of European Languages
    1 In: Buchstaller, Isabelle & Siebenhaar, Beat (eds.) 2017. Language Variation – European Perspectives VI: Selected papers from the 8th International Conference on Language Variation in Europe (ICLaVE 8), Leipzig 2015. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Analytic and synthetic: Typological change in varieties of European languages MARTIN HASPELMATH & SUSANNE MARIA MICHAELIS 1. The macro-comparative perspective: Language typology and language contact Since the early 19th century, linguists have sometimes tried to understand language change from a broader perspective, as affecting the entire character of a language. Since A.W. von Schlegel (1818), it has been commonplace to say that Latin was a SYNTHETIC language, while the Romance languages are (more) ANALYTIC, i.e. make more use of auxiliary words and periphrastic constructions of various kinds. In this paper, we adopt a macro-comparative perspective on language variation in Europe, corresponding to our background in world-wide typology of contact languages (Michaelis et al. 2013) and general world-wide typology (Haspelmath et al. 2005). While variationist studies typically ask for patterns of variation within a single language, we ask whether there is a “big picture” in addition to all the details, in the tradition of A.W. von Schlegel. In particular, the topic of this paper is the replacement of synthetic patterns by analytic patterns that has interested typologists and historical linguists since the 19th century and that has recently been the focus of some prominent research in variationist studies of English and English-lexified creoles (Szmrecsanyi 2009; Kortmann & Szmrecsanyi 2011; Siegel et al. 2014; Szmrecsanyi 2016). By way of a first simple illustration, consider the examples in Table 1, where the symbol “>>” means that the newer pattern on the right-hand side competes with and tends to replace the older pattern on the left-hand side.
    [Show full text]
  • Word Meanings and Sentence Structure Recruit the Same Set of Fronto-Temporal Regions During Comprehension
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/477851; this version posted November 24, 2018. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license. Title Word meanings and sentence structure recruit the same set of fronto-temporal regions during comprehension Abbreviated title Word meanings and sentence structure Authors Evelina Fedorenko1,2,3, Zachary Mineroff3, Matthew Siegelman3, Idan Blank3 Affiliations 1Department of Psychiatry, MGH, Charlestown, MA 02129, USA 2Department of Psychiatry, HMS, Boston, MA 02115, USA 3Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences / McGovern Institute for Brain Research, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA Corresponding Author Ev Fedorenko [email protected]; 43 Vassar Street, Room 46-3037, Cambridge, MA, 02139 1 bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/477851; this version posted November 24, 2018. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license. Abstract (291 words) To understand what you are reading now, your mind retrieves the meanings of words from a linguistic knowledge store (lexico-semantic processing) and identifies the relationships among them to construct a complex meaning (syntactic or combinatorial processing). Do these two sets of processes rely on distinct, specialized mechanisms or, rather, share a common pool of resources? Linguistic theorizing and empirical evidence from language acquisition and processing have yielded a picture whereby lexico-semantic and syntactic processing are deeply inter-connected.
    [Show full text]
  • Neural Encoding and Production of Functional Morphemes in the Posterior Temporal Lobe
    Neural Encoding and Production of Functional Morphemes in the Posterior Temporal Lobe The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Lee, Daniel. 2019. Neural Encoding and Production of Functional Morphemes in the Posterior Temporal Lobe. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard Medical School. Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:40620140 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA Abstract Morphemes are the smallest meaning-carrying units in human language, and are among the most basic building blocks through which humans express specific ideas and concepts. By using time-resolved cortical stimulations, neural recordings and focal lesion evaluations, we show that inhibition of a small cortical area within the left dominant posterior-superior temporal lobe selectively impairs the ability to produce appropriate functional morphemes but does not distinctly affect semantic and lexical retrieval, comprehension, or articulation. Additionally, neural recordings within this area reveal the localized encoding of morphological properties and their planned production prior to speech onset. Finally, small lesions localized to the gray matter in this area result in a selective functional morpheme production deficit. Collectively, these findings reveal a detailed division of linguistic labor within the posterior- superior temporal lobe and suggest that functional morpheme processing constitutes an operationally discrete step in the series of computations essential to language production.
    [Show full text]
  • Comprehension of Verb Inflection in German-Speaking Children
    Universität Potsdam Oda-Christina Brandt-Kobele Comprehension of verb inflection in German-speaking children Spektrum Patholinguistik – Schriften | 6 Spektrum Patholinguistik – Schriften | 6 Spektrum Patholinguistik – Schriften | 6 Oda-Christina Brandt-Kobele Comprehension of verb inflection in German-speaking children Universitätsverlag Potsdam Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.dnb.de/ abrufbar. Universitätsverlag Potsdam 2014 http://verlag.ub.uni-potsdam.de/ Am Neuen Palais 10, 14469 Potsdam Tel.: +49 (0)331 977 2533 / Fax: 2292 E-Mail: [email protected] Die Schriftenreihe Spektrum Patholinguistik – Schriften wird herausgegeben vom Verband für Patholinguistik e. V. ISSN (print) 1869-3822 ISSN (online) 1869-3830 Zugl.: Potsdam, Univ., Diss., 2012 Gutachter: Prof. Dr. Barbara Höhle Prof. Dr. Isabell Wartenburger Datum der mündlichen Prüfung: 20.07.2012 Umschlagfotos: Paul Sapiano, http://www.flickr.com/photos/peasap/518956588/ Mikko Luntiala, http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikko_luntiala/4720244099/ Das Manuskript ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Online veröffentlicht auf dem Publikationsserver der Universität Potsdam URL http://pub.ub.uni-potsdam.de/volltexte/2014/6204/ URN urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-62046 http://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-62046 Zugleich gedruckt erschienen im Universitätsverlag Potsdam ISBN 978-3-86956-216-2 for Greg Acknowledgements This dissertation would not have been possible without the sup- port of many people to whom I would like to express my sincere gratitude. First and foremost, I would like to thank Prof. Barbara Höhle, my supervisor. Her advice and guidance as well as her teaching and her own work have helped, influenced and inspired me.
    [Show full text]