Cover not available
Article published In:
Words & Constructions: Language complexity in linguistics and psychology
Edited by Juhani Järvikivi, Pirita Pyykkönen-Klauck and Matti Laine
[The Mental Lexicon 9:2] 2014
► pp. 232–266

Simplicity and complexity in constructions

Evidence from aphasia

 | University of Colorado at Boulder
 | University of Colorado at Boulder
Linguistic complexity is usually approached in terms of markedness and branching structure, and psycholinguistic complexity in terms of frequency, sequential probability, and working memory load. However, predictions made on these bases appear to be inadequate to explain many patterns seen in aphasic speech. Psycholinguistic analyses of aphasic errors provide an empirical basis for describing lexical, morphological, and syntactic contributions to language complexity. We compare the predictions made by existing descriptions of complexity to aphasic error data as reported in cross‐linguistic studies. A construction‐based approach may be able to unify the patterns seen across lexicon, morphology and syntax.
Keywords: language production, psycholinguistics, frequency, lexicon, syntax, morphology, constructions, complexity, aphasia
Published online: 21 November 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.9.2.04duf
References (114)
Arnon, I., & Snider, N. (2010). More than words: Frequency effects for multi-word phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 621, 67–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R.H., Feldman, L.B., & Schreuder, R. (2006). Morphological influences on the recognition of monosyllabic monomorphemic words. Journal of Memory and Language, 55 (2), 290–313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Badecker, W., & Straub, K. (2002). The processing role of structural constraints on the interpretation of pronouns and anaphors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 28 (4), 748–769. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bastiaanse, R., Bouma, G., & Post, W. (2009). Linguistic complexity and frequency in agrammatic speech production. Brain and Language, 1091, 18–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bates, E., Friederici, A., & Wulfeck, B. (1987). Comprehension in aphasia: A crosslinguistic study. Brain and Language, 321, 19–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bates, E., & Wulfeck, B. (1989). Comparative aphasiology: A cross-linguistic approach to language breakdown. Aphasiology, 3 (2), 111–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Belke, E., Meyer, A.S., & Damian, M.F. (2005). Refractory effects in picture naming as assessed in a semantic blocking paradigm. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 58 (4), 667–692. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berndt, R.S. (1988). Category-specific deficits in aphasia. Aphasiology, 21, 237–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bernstein Ratner, N., & Costa Sih, C. (1987). Effects of gradual increases in sentence length and complexity on children’s disfluency. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 521, 278–287. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blackwell, A., & Bates, E. (1995). Inducing agrammatic profiles in normals: Evidence for the selective vulnerability of morphology under cognitive resource limitation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 7 (2), 228–257. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bock, J.K. (1986). Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology, 18 (3), 355–387. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, R. (1973). A first language: The early stages. Oxford: Harvard University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bradley, D., Garrett, M.F., & Zurif, E.B. (1980). Syntactic deficits in Broca’s aphasics. In D. Caplan (Ed.), Biological studies of mental processes (pp. 269–286). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Burkhardt, P., Pinango, M.M., & Wong, K. (2003). The role of the anterior left hemisphere in real-time sentence comprehension: Evidence from split intransitivity. Brain and Language, 861, 9–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (1998). A functionalist approach to grammar and its evolution. Evolution of Communication, 2 (2), 249–278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2006). From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language, 82 (4), 711–733. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Campos, H. (2009). Some notes on adjectival articles in Albanian. Lingua, 1191, 1009–1034. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chambers, C.G., Tanenhaus, M.K., Eberhard, K.M., Filip, H., & Carlson, G.N. (2002). Circumscribing referential domains during real-time language comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 471, 30–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chambers, C.G., Tanenhaus, M.K., & Magnuson, J.S. (2004). Actions and affordances in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 30 (3), 687–696. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Christiansen, M.H., & MacDonald, M.C. (2009). A usage-based approach to recursion in sentence processing. Language Learning, 591, 126–161. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, E.V., & Clark, H.H. (1979). When nouns surface as verbs. Language, 551, 767–811. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cutting, J.C., & Bock, K. (1997). That’s the way the cookie bounces: Syntactic and semantic components of experimentally elicited idiom blends. Memory and Cognition, 25 (1), 57–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Roo, E., Kolk, H., & Hofstede, B. (2002). Structural properties of syntactically reduced speech: A comparison of normal speakers and Broca’s aphasics. Brain and Language, 861, 99–115. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Damasio, H, Grabowski, T.J., Tranel, D., Hichwa, R.D., & Damasio, A.R. (1996). A neural basis for lexical retrieval. Nature, 65741, 499–505. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dell, G.S., Oppenheim, G.M., & Kittredge, A.K. (2008). Saying the right word at the right time: Syntagmatic and paradigmatic interference in sentence production. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23 (4), 583–608. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dick, F., Bates, E., Wulfeck, B., Utmann, J.A., Dronkers, N., & Gernsbacher, M.A. (2001). Language deficits, localization and grammar: Evidence for a distributive model of language breakdown in aphasic patients and neurologically intact individuals. Psychological Review, 108 (4), 759–788. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dressler, W. (1991). The sociolinguistic and patholinguistic attrition of Breton. In H.W. Seliger, & R.M. Vago (Eds.), First language attrition (pp. 99–112). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eberhard, K.M. (1999). The accessibility of conceptual number to the process of subject-verb agreement in English. Journal of Memory and Language, 411, 560–578. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Faroqi-Shah, Y., & Thompson, C.K. (2010). Production latencies of morphologically simple and complex verbs in aphasia. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 24 (12), 963–979. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, V.S., & Dell, G.S. (2000). Effects of ambiguity and lexical availability on syntactic and lexical production. Cognitive Psychology, 401, 296–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Filip, H., Tanenhaus, M.K., Carlson, G.N., Allopenna, P.D., & Blatt, J. (2002). Reduced relatives judged hard require constraint-based analyses. In P. Merlo, & S. Stevenson (Eds.), The lexical basis of sentence processing (pp. 255–279). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Franck, J., Soare, G., Frauenfelder, U.H., & Rizzi, L. (2010). Object interference in subject-verb agreement: The role of intermediate traces in movement. Journal of Memory and Language, 621, 166–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gahl, S., Menn, L., Ramsberger, G., Jurafsky, D.S., Elder, E., Rewega, M., & Holland, A.L. (2003). Syntactic frame and verb bias in aphasia: Plausibility judgments of undergoer-subject sentences. Brain and Cognition, 531, 223–228. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geschwind, N. (1972). Language and the brain. Scientific American, 226 (4), 76–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 681, 1–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gleitman, L.R., January, D., Nappa, R., & Trueswell, J.C. (2007). On the give and take between event apprehension and utterance formulation. Journal of Memory and Language, 571, 544–569. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A.E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. (2003). Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. TRENDS in Cognitive Science, 7 (5), 219–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldman-Eisler, F. (1958). The predictability of words in context and the length of pauses in speech. Language and Speech, 11, 226–231. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodglass, H., & Menn, L. (1985). Is agrammatism a unitary phenomenon? In M.L. Kean (Ed.), Agrammatism (pp. 1–26). New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodglass, H., Wingfield, A., & Hyde, M. (1998). The Boston Corpus of aphasic naming errors. Brain and Language, 641, 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodglass, H., Kaplan, E., & Barresi, B. (2001). Boston diagnostic aphasia examination. Pro-Ed.Google Scholar
Gordon, B., & Caramazza, A. (1982). Lexical decision for open- and closed-class items: Failure to replicate differential frequency sensitivity. Brain and Language, 151, 143–160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gordon, P., Hendrick, R., & Johnson, M. (2004). Effects of noun phrase type on sentence complexity. Journal of Memory and Language, 511, 97–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gordon, J.K. (2002). Phonological neighborhood effects in aphasic speech errors: Spontaneous and structured contexts. Brain and Language, 821, 113–145. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Griffin, Z.M., & Bock, K. (2000). What the eyes say about speaking. Psychological Science, 11 (4), 274–279. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Griffin, Z.M., & Wangerman, T. (2013). Parents accidentally substitute similar sounding sibling names more often than dissimilar names. PLoS ONE, 8 (12), e84444. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grodzinsky, Y., Swinney, D., & Zurif, E. (1985). Agrammatism: Structural limitations and antecedent processing disruptions. In M-L. Kean (Ed.), Agrammatism, 65–82. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hartsuiker, R.J., & Kolk, H.H.J. (1998). Syntactic facilitation in agrammatic sentence production. Brain and Language, 621, 221–254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hartsuiker, R.J., Kolk, H.H.J., & Huinck, W.J. (1999). Agrammatic production of subject-verb agreement: The effect of conceptual number. Brain and Language, 691, 119–160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haskell, T.R., & MacDonald, M.C. (2003). Conflicting cues in subject-verb agreement. Journal of Memory and Language, 481, 760–778. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, J.A. (2004). Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hillis, A.E., & Caramazza, A. (1995). Representation of grammatical categories of words in the brain. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 71, 396–407. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1991). Category-specific naming and comprehension impairment: A double dissociation. Brain, 1141, 2081–2094. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jaeger, T.F., & Tily, H. (2011). Language processing complexity and communicative efficiency. WIRE: Cognitive Science 2 (3), 323–335. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Joanisse, M.F., & Seidenberg, M.S. (1999). Impairments in verb morphology after brain injury: A connectionist model. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 96 (13), 7592–7597. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Karlsson, F., Miestamo, M., & Sinnemäki, K. (2008). The problem of language complexity. In M. Miestamo, K. Sinnemäki, & F. Karlsson (Eds.), Language complexity: Typology, contact, change (pp. vi–xiv). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kay, P., & Fillmore, C.J. (1999). Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The what’s x doing y? construction. Language, 751, 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, A., & Osterhout, L. (2005). The independence of combinatoric semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Memory and Language, 521, 205–255. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
King, J., & Just, M.A. (1991). Individual differences in syntactic processing: The role of working memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 301, 580–602. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kleinow, J., & Smith, A. (2000). Influences of length and syntactic complexity on the speech motor stability of the fluent speech of adults who stutter. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 431, 548–559. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kroll, J., & Merves, J.S. (1986). Lexical access for concrete and abstract words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12 (1), 92–107. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krott, A., Baayen, H., & Schruder, R. (2001). Analogy in morphology: Modeling the choice of linking morphemes in Dutch. Linguistics, 39 (1), 51–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lecours, A.R., Osborn, E., Tracis, L., Rouillon, F., & Lavallée, G. (1981). Jargons. In J.W. Brown (Ed.), Jargonaphasia. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lai, V.T., Curran, T., & Menn, L. (2009) Comprehending conventional and novel metaphors: An ERP study. Brain Research, 12841, 145–155. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Libben, G. (1998). Semantic transparency in the processing of compounds: Consequences for representation, processing and impairment. Brain and Language, 611, 30–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Libben, G., Gibson, M., Yoon, Y.B., & Sandra, D. (2004) Compound fracture: The role of semantic transparency and morphological headedness. Brain and Language, 841, 50–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Linebarger, M.C., Schwartz, M.F., & Saffran, E.M. (1983). Sensitivity to grammatical structure in so-called agrammatic aphasics. Cognition, 131, 361–392. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Love, T., Heist, F., Nicol, J., & Swinney, D. (2006). A functional neuroimaging investigation of the roles of structural complexity and task-demand during auditory sentence processing. Cortex, 421, 577–590. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, R.A., & Warrington, E. (1988). Evidence for modality-specific meaning systems in the brain. Nature, 3341, 428–430. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McClelland, J.L., Botvinick, M.M., Noelle, D.C., Plaut, D.C., Rogers, T.T., Seidenberg, M.S., & Smith, L.B. (2010). Letting structure emerge: Connectionist and dynamical systems approaches to cognition. Trends in cognitive sciences, 14 (8), 348–356. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McClelland, J.L., & Patterson, K. (2002). Rules or connections in past-tense inflections: What does the evidence rule out?. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6 (11), 465–472. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Menn, L. (2000). Studying the pragmatic microstructure of aphasic and normal speech: An experimental approach. In L. Menn, & N. Bernstein Ratner (Eds.), Methods for studying language production (pp. 377–401). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
. (2011). Psycholinguistics: Introduction and applications. San Diego: Plural Publishing.Google Scholar
Menn, L., Gottfried, M., Holland, A., & Garrett, M. (2005). Encoding location in aphasic and normal speech: The interaction of pragmatics with language output processing limitations. Aphasiology, 19 (6), 487–519. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Menn, L., & Gottfried, M. (2007). Aphasic errors in expressing location: Implications for production models. In C.T. Schütze, & V.S. Ferreira (Eds.), The state of the art in speech error research: Proceedings of the LSA Institute workshop, MIT working papers in linguistics 53, 305–351.Google Scholar
Menn, L., Kamio, A., Hayashi, M., Fujita, I., Sasanuma, S., & Boles, L. (1999). The role of empathy in sentence production. Function and structure, in honor of Susumu Kuno (pp. 317–355).Google Scholar
Menn, L., & Obler, L.K. (1990). Chapter 20, Conclusion: Cross-language data and theories of agrammatism. In L. Menn, & L.K. Obler, (Eds.), Agrammatic aphasia (Vol. II1, pp. 1369–1389). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Menn, L., Reilly, K.F., Hayashi, M., Kamio, A., Fujita, I., & Sasanuma, S. (1998). The interaction of preserved pragmatics and impaired syntax in Japanese and English aphasic speech. Brain and language, 61 (2), 183–225. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miceli, G., Mazzucchi, A., Menn, L., & Goodglass, H. (1983). Contrasting cases of Italian agrammatic aphasia without comprehension disorder. Brain and Language, 191, 69–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miceli, G., Silveri, M.C., Nocentini, U., & Caramazza, A. (1988). Patterns of dissociation in comprehension and production of nouns and verbs. Aphasiology, 2 (3-4), 351–358. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mirman, D., & Magnuson, J.S. (2008). Attractor dynamics and semantic neighborhood density: Processing is slowed by near neighbors and speeded by distant neighbors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34 (1), 65–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miyake, A., Just, M.A., & Carpenter, P.A. (1994). Working memory constraints on the resolution of lexical ambiguity: Maintaining multiple interpretations in neutral contexts. Journal of Memory and Language, 33 (2), 175–202. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nakano, H., Saron, C., & Swaab, T.Y. (2010). Speech and span: Working memory capacity impacts the use of animacy but not of world knowledge during spoken sentence comprehension. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22 (12), 2886–2898. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nespoulous, J.L., & Lecours, A.R. (1989). Pourquoi l’aphasique peut-il dire: “Je ne peux pas le dire” et pas “Elle ne peut pas la chanter’’? (De l’intérêt des dissociations verbales dans l’étude du « comportement verbal des aphasiques »). Cahiers du Centre Interdisciplinaire des Sciences du Langage, Mélanges offerts à J. Verguin. Toulouse: Université de Toulouse-Le Mirail.Google Scholar
Nespoulous, J.L., Code, C., Virbel, J., & Lecours, A.R. (1998). Hypotheses on the dissociation between” referential” and” modalizing” verbal behavior in aphasia. Applied Psycholinguistics, 191, 311–332. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nichols, J. (1986). Head-marking and dependent-marking grammar. Language, 62 (1), 56–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Grady, W. (2011). Relative clauses: Processing and acquisition. In Evan Kidd (Ed.), The acquisition of relative clauses: Processing, typology and function, (pp. 13–38). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Osterhout, L., McLaughlin, J., Kim, A., Greenwald, R., & Inoue, K. (2004). Sentences in the brain: Event-related potentials as real-time reflections of sentence comprehension and language learning. In M. Carreiras, & C. Clifton Jr., (Eds.), The on-line study of sentence comprehension: Eyetracking, ERP, and beyond (pp. 271–308). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Paivio, A. (1969). Mental imagery in associative learning and memory. Psychological Review, 76 (3), 241–263. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1991). Dual coding theory: Retrospect and current status. Canadian Journal of Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie, 45 (3), 255–287. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S., & Ullman, M.T. (2002). The past and future of the past tense. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6 (11), 456–463. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ramsberger, G., Miyake, A., Menn, L., Reilly, K., & Filley, C.M. (1999). Selective preservation of geographical and numerical information in a patient with severe anomia. Aphasiology, 13 (8), 625–645. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, B., Zurif, E., Brownell, H., Garrett, M., & Bradley, D. (1985). Grammatical class effects in relation to normal and aphasic sentence processing. Brain and Language, 26 (2), 287–303. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, M.F., Saffran, E.M., & Marin, O.S. (1980). The word order problem in agrammatism: I. Comprehension. Brain and Language, 10 (2), 249–262. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sag, I.A. (2010). English filler-gap constructions. Language, 86 (3), 486–545. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sampson, G., Gil, D., & Trudgill, P. (Eds.). (2009). Language Complexity as an Evolving Variable (Vol. 131). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Samson, D., & Pillon, A. (2004). Orthographic neighborhood and concreteness effects in the lexical decision task. Brain and Language, 91 (2), 252–264. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, M.F., Saffran, E.M., & Marin, O.S. (1980). The word order problem in agrammatism: I. Comprehension. Brain and Language, 10 (2), 249–262. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, L.P., Zurif, E., & Grimshaw, J. (1987). Sentence processing and the mental representation of verbs. Cognition, 27 (3), 219–246. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Silverman, S.W., & Ratner, N.B. (1997). Syntactic complexity, fluency, and accuracy of sentence imitation in adolescents. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 40 (1), 95–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D.I., & Bever, T.G. (1982). Children use canonical sentence schemas: A crosslinguistic study of word order and inflections. Cognition, 12 (3), 229–265. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Solomon, E.S., & Pearlmutter, N.J. (2004). Semantic integration and syntactic planning in language production. Cognitive Psychology, 49 (1), 1–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sprenger, S.A., Levelt, W.J., & Kempen, G. (2006). Lexical access during the production of idiomatic phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 54 (2), 161–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sung, J.E., McNeil, M.R., Pratt, S.R., Dickey, M.W., Fassbinder, W., Szuminsky, N.J., & Doyle, P.J. (2011). Real-time processing in reading sentence comprehension for normal adult individuals and persons with aphasia. Aphasiology, 25 (1), 57–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Staub, A. (2009). On the interpretation of the number attraction effect: Response time evidence. Journal of Memory and Language, 60 (2), 308–327. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sturt, P. (2003). The time-course of the application of binding constraints in reference resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 48 (3), 542–562. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swinney, D.A. (1979). Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re) consideration of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18 (6), 645–659. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tabossi, P., Fanari, R., & Wolf, K. (2009). Why are idioms recognized fast?. Memory & Cognition, 37 (4), 529–540. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tanenhaus, M.K., & Trueswell, J.C. (2006). Eye movements and spoken language comprehension. In M.E. Traxler, & M.A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (2nd ed., pp. 863–900). Amsterdam: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tissot, R., Mounin, G., & Lhermitte, F. (1973). L’Agrammatisme. Paris: Dessart.Google Scholar
Trueswell, J.C., & Kim, A.E. (1998). How to prune a garden path by nipping it in the bud: Fast priming of verb argument structure. Journal of Memory and Language, 39 (1), 102–123. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tse, C.S., & Altarriba, J. (2009). The word concreteness effect occurs for positive, but not negative, emotion words in immediate serial recall. British Journal of Psychology, 100 (1), 91–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zingeser, L.B., & Berndt, R.S. (1990). Retrieval of nouns and verbs in agrammatism and anomia. Brain and Language, 39 (1), 14–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar