¹ “Send” has two argumental structure options and three subcategorization frame options, while “donate” has two argumental structure options and two subcategorization frame options shown as: “send”: (x,y) / (x,y,z) send: [-NP NP], [-NP PP], [-NP] “donate”: (x,y,z) / (x,y) donate: [-NP, PP], [-NP].

² Damasio, A.R. and Tranel, D., “Nouns and Verbs are Retrieved with Differently Distributed Neural Systems,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 90, no. 11 (1993): 4958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³ Collina, S., Garbin, G., and Tabossi, P., “The Role of Argument Structure in the Processing of Noun and Verbs: An f-MRI Study,” Brain and Language 103, no. 1 (2007): 71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar In linguistics, argument refers to any of the noun phrases in a clause related to the verb. Typically, the subject, direct and indirect objects are arguments of verbs.

⁴ Based on a general idea in syntax, verbs and their arguments are part of our mental lexicon. Components of a sentence are verb arguments of that sentence. Verbs give theta roles to each argument of their own. The verb and its arguments determine the propositional meaning of a sentence. Occurrence of a verb with its special theta roles of its own is called argumental structure. A subcategorization frame has been introduced to syntax to avoid problems caused by simple phrase structure rules (e.g. VP: V (NP) (PP)) which could overgenerate and produce ungrammatical and meaningless sentences like: *The man thinks you. It is a part of a verb mental representation including components which can occur within the VP in which the verb is the head. “Think,” for example, subcategorizes for [-CP] complement and [-PP] one. Chomsky, Noam, Syntactic Structures (The Hague, 1957)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Chomsky, Noam, Lectures on Government and Binding (Dordrecht, 1981).Google Scholar

⁵ Collina, S., Marangolo, P., and Tabossi, P., “The Role of Argument Structure in the Production of Nouns and Verbs,” Neuropsychologia 39, no. 11 (2001): 1125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶ Collina et al., “The Role of Argument Structure in the Processing of Noun and Verbs,” 72.

⁷ Bonakdarpour, B., Thompson, C.K. and Fix, S.C., “Neural Signatures of Verb Argument Structure in Agrammatic Aphasic and Aged-Matched Individuals,” Brain and Language 103, no. 1 (2007): 85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸ de Bleser, R. and Kauschke, C., “Acquisition and Loss of Nouns and Verbs: Parallel or Divergent Patterns?,” Journal of Neurolinguistics 16, no. 6 (2003): 515–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fernandez, B. et al., “Functional MRI Follow-up Study of Language Processes in Healthy Subjects and during Recovery in a Case of Aphasia,” Stroke 35, no. 9 (2004): 2171–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar; R. Jonkers and R. Bastiaanse, “How Selective are Selective Word Class Deficits? Two Case Studies of Action and Object Namig,” Aphasiology 12 (1998): 245–56; Kim, M. and Thompson, C.K., “Verb Deficits in Alzheimer Disease and Agrammatism: Implications for Lexical Organization,” Brain and Language 16, no. 2 (2004): 151–67Google Scholar, Luzzatti, C. et al., “Verb–Noun Double Dissociation in Aphasic Lexical Impairments: The Role of Word Frequency and Imageability,” Brain and Language. 81, no. 1 (2002): 432–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁹ Shapiro, L.P., Hack, N., and Killackey, J., “Verb Argument Processing in Complex Sentences in Broca's and Wernicke's Aphasia,” Brain and Language 45 (1993): 423–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Shapiro, L.P., Zurif, E., and Grimshaw, J., “Verb Processing during Sentence Comprehension: Contextual Impenetrability,” Journal of Psycholinguist Research 18 (1989): 223–43Google Scholar; L.P. Shapiro, E. Zurif, and J. Grimshaw, “Sentence Processing and the Mental Representation of Verbs,” Cognition 27 (1987): 219–46. Shapiro (1990)

¹⁰ Shapiro et al., “Sentence Processing and the Mental Representation of Verbs,” 228.

¹¹ Shapiro et al., “Sentence Processing and the Mental Representation of Verbs.”