T), propositional CCs (e.g., simply because can’t conjoin causally unrelated propositions, as in Simply because he has a name, they named him), and correlative CCs (e.g., a member of a single correlative conjunction pair can not conjoin using a member of one more pair, as in She either likes him nor hates him). 5.1. Outcomes Excluding CC violations involving the gender, number, or person of pronouns, prevalent nouns, and typical noun NPs referring to men and women, H.M. violated 29 further CCs, versus a imply of 0.25 for the controls (SD = 0.25), a reputable 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. five.1.1. CC Violations Involving Verb Complements or Modifiers Overall 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 be: 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 wrong for her to be…” (BPC primarily based around the image and utterance context: it really is wrong for her to be there: omission of a verb complement or modifier; see Table 4 for H.M.’s full utterance) H.M.’s troubles in conjoining complements together with the verb to become weren’t distinctive towards the TLC. Note that H.M. made remarkably similar uncorrected copular complement omissions on the TLC in (30) and in the course of conversational speech in (31), in each situations yielding all round utterances that have been incoherent, ungrammatical, and difficult-to-comprehend. (31). H.M. (spontaneous conversation in [53]): “What’s found out about me will aid other people be.” (copular-complement CC violation)Brain Sci. 2013, 3 five.1.two. 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 shoes on (exactly where the auxiliary do in “doesn’t got” is in error) [54]. (32). H.M.: “She does not got any footwear on…” (BPC: she doesn’t have any shoes on or she hasn’t got any footwear on; see Table 5 for H.M.’s full utterance) five.1.3. Violations of Verb-Object CCs Instance (33) illustrates a violation of a verb-object CC: H.M.’s “he’s attempting to sell” is ungrammatical due to the fact transitive verbs such as sell demand an object which include 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 wanting to sell.” (BPC based around the picture and utterance context: trying to sell it; major violation of a verbobject CC; see Table 4 for H.M.’s full utterance) five.1.4. Violations of Modifier-Noun CCs Example (34) illustrates a violation of a modifier-common noun CC because the adjective Tyr-D-Ala-Gly-Phe-Leu web scrawny can not modify inanimate nouns for instance bus except in metaphoric uses like personification [55]. Having said that, metaphoric use of scrawny is implausible here since H.M. exhibits particular difficulties with metaphors, performing at possibility levels and reliably worse than controls in comprehending metaphors around the TLC (see [12]). 
Additionally, 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 which can be farther away or much more distant but not smaller sized than the other (see T.