The (deviant) substitution (or omission) of grammatical ... Testing A patient is asked to look at a...
34
Paragrammatism The (deviant) substitution (or omission) of grammatical morphemes in spontaneous speech • (substitution makes it different to agrammatism) Abnormal ‘grammatical’ sequences
Transcript of The (deviant) substitution (or omission) of grammatical ... Testing A patient is asked to look at a...
Paragrammatism
The(deviant)substitution(oromission)ofgrammaticalmorphemesinspontaneousspeech
• (substitutionmakesitdifferenttoagrammatism)
Abnormal‘grammatical’sequences
Paragrammatism
Aroundasatermsince1914!
Originallyseenasaproblemofwordorder
ButalwaysseenasdifferenttoAgrammatism
Paragrammatism
ItisnormallyassociatedwithfluentaphasiassuchasWernicke’saphasia
Andisseeninlanguageproduction
Paragrammatism
Difficultiesincomprehensionarealsoafeatureoffluentaphasia
Paragrammatism
IfaWernicke’saphasicpatienthasgoodcommunicationalandinteractionalskillstheycansometimesdisguisethecomprehensiondeficit
Paragrammatism
Wernicke’saphasicpatientsmaybeunawareofthecomprehensiondifficultyespeciallyinthe
earlydaysafteronset
Paragrammatism
Fluentaphasicpatientsfindmeaningdependentonsyntaxmoredifficulttounderstand,andfind
understandingcomplexsentencesmoredifficultthensimplesentences
Paragrammatism
Production:
Subjectsmaymakemistakes;attemptingtosayonethingbutsayinganother.
Target:whattheywant(orareinstructed)tosay
Response:whattheyactuallysay
Paragrammatism
Testing
SeeEdwards(2005:98‐104)
ParagrammatismTesting
Apatientisaskedtolookatapictureanddescribethatpictureinonesentence.
20picturesinall.
Thepatient’sspontaneousspeechisfluentandhedisplaysbothwellandillformedsentences.
Thelanguageproducedbythepatientcanbecomparedtothelanguageofnon‐aphasicsusersperformingthesametask
Paragrammatism
Target Response
Themanisrunning ThemanrunningThemaniswalking WalkingdownthestreetThemanispaintingthewoman PaintingthepictureTheboyishittingthegirl Theladybox
Paragrammatism
Outoffoursentences,threeofthefourlexicalverbs,running,walking,painting,areproducedwhiletheverbhittinginsentence(4)issubstitutedforasemanticallyrelatedverbbox,whichislikehitinmeaning.TherewerealsosubstitutionsandomissionsmadewithsubjectNP’se.g.themaninsentence(2,3)isomitted,andtheNPinobjectpositioninsentence(4)issubstitutede.g.girlreplacedbylady.
Paragrammatism
Althoughtenseinflectionisnotseenintheseexampleswecannotassumeitismissingaltogetherastheaspectualinflection‘‐ing’ispresent.
Thepreservationof‘–ing’hasbeendocumentedasafeatureofnon‐fluentaphasiaandhasnotbeengenerallyrecognisedasafeatureoffluentaphasia.
Paragrammatism
AllfoursentencesaremissingtheconstituentunderT(Tensenode).Threeofthesentenceshavethecorrectverbwhilethefourthdoesnot.
Substitutionssuggesttheunderlyingnodeisintactomissionssuggesttheunderlyingnodeisunavailableormissing.
Thesentencesproducedbythepatientshowedthatthepatientunderstoodthepicturesandthetask.
Paragrammatism
Fluentaphasicspeakersproducefewersubordinateclausesthanthenormalcontrols.
Howevertheyalsoproducedmorecanonicalsentencestructuresthannormalcontrols.
Paragrammatism
Fluentaphasicspeakersproducefewersubordinateclausesthanthenormalcontrols.Howevertheyalsoproducedmorecanonicalsentencestructuresthannormalcontrols.
So,avoidingcomplexstructures.
Paragrammatism
Thisgreaterprevalenceofcanonicalstructuresinfluentaphasicsspeechwasshowntobethecase
acrossawiderangeoflanguages.
Theoverallfindingofareductioninsentencecomplexityinfluentaphasicspeakersofdifferentlanguagestellsusthatthisisafeatureoffluentaphasiaandisnotalanguagespecificfeature.
Paragrammatism
EdwardsandBastiaanse(1998)showedthatfluentaphasicspeakersalthoughabletoproducemainandsubordinateclausesusedsignificantlyfewer
thanthecontrolgroup.
Paragrammatism
Sosomethingismakingitdifficultforthemtodealwithcomplexstructures
Paragrammatism
Testingcantakeplaceusingelicitedspeech
Orusingspontaneousspeech
Paragrammatism
Connectedfluentaphasicspeechsamplesareassumedtobemorenaturalistic.
Thereforemorerepresentativeofaphasiclanguageabilities.
Paragrammatism
Patientsarerecordedinavarietyofsituations;
Speakingwithrelatives,carers,speechandlanguagetherapists,andotherresearchers.
Thesamplesvaryinlength,andmanner.Theaphasicpatientsknowtheyarebeingrecorded.
Thesamplesgatheredarecomparedtonormalnon‐aphasicindividuals.
Speechsamplesareusuallyabouttwominuteslongorthreehundredwords.
Paragrammatism
Thetaskcanfairlystraightforwardsuchasre‐tellingthecinderellastory!
Paragrammatism
Hagoortandcolleagues(1999),suggestthatsyntactic,semantic,andpragmaticinformationallplayaroleindeterminingthemeaningofasentence.
Thereforesentencesgiveninatestsituationwithnoadditionalcontextualinformationmaybeunderstoodlessthanthesamesentencewithinacommunicativeprocesswhereextrasyntactic,semantic,andpragmaticinformationisavailable(Edwards,2005:157).
Paragrammatism
Wernicke’saphasicswereawareofthesyntacticandpragmaticinformationbutwereunableto
integrateit.
Wernicke’saphasicshavedeficitswithsemanticcombinatorialoperations,andalsodifficultiesin
lexical‐semanticintegrationprocessing.
Paragrammatism
Broca’s aphasics are said to have reduced lexicalactivationwhileWernicke’saphasicsaresaidtohaveincreasedlexicalactivation.
Bothunder‐activationandover‐activationcanresultinadeficitforcombininglexical,syntactic,andpragmaticinformationinthematicstructures.
Paragrammatism
Broca’saphasicsaresaidtohavereducedlexicalactivationwhileWernicke’saphasicsaresaidtohaveincreasedlexicalactivation.
Bothunder‐activationandover‐activationcanresult in adeficit for combining lexical, syntactic, and pragmaticinformationinthematicstructures.
The former because lexical entries would only map onweaklytothethematicroles, andthelatterbecausetheoverly activated system would be unable to select theappropriatethematicstructuresfromallofthoseactivated.
Paragrammatism
A Lexically driven account suggests thatword finding difficulties, or failure toactivate the appropriate word wouldtherefore impair syntax and sentenceformulation.
Thesyntactic‘frame’requiredbyaverbforinstancewouldnotbecompletelyavailablesotheparagrammatic wouldbeunable toproperlyconstructthesentence.
Paragrammatism
InthestudybyFaroqi‐Shah,andThompson(2002)therelationbetweenlexicalretrievalandsentenceformulationwasexamined.
SevenWernicke’saphasicspeakersandsevenBroca’saphasicspeakersparticipated,andnarrativespeechsamplesoftheCinderellastorywereobtainedfromeachparticipantusingdifferentpicturesdepictingactionsaccompaniedbyvaryinglexicalinformationi.e.nounsandverbs,toelicitthespeechsamples.
Paragrammatism
Thestudyexaminedtheproductionofreversibleandnon‐reversibleactivesandpassivesinBroca’sandWernicke’saphasia.
Wernicke’saphasicsubjectsshoweddifficultywithproducingandcomprehendingpassivesentences,inparticularpassivesentenceswithreversiblerolese.g.‘themanwashuggedbythewoman’,justlikeagrammaticaphasics.
Soitlooksasifparagrammatismandagrammatismaren’tasdifferentaswasoncethought!
Paragrammatism
Broca’saphasicsubjectsproducedmoremorphologicalerrorsthanWernicke’saphasicswhoweremoreimpairedinobject‐naming.
Paragrammatism
Theybothshowedsomesimilaritiesacrossthetasksi.e.grammaticalmorphemeerrors,rolereversalerrors,prepositionerrors,unrelatedsentences,andnon‐sentences.Themostcommonerrornotedwasthedifficultywithreversiblepassives.
Paragrammatism
InconclusiontheauthorsfailedtofindadirecteffectoflexicalcuesonthesuccessofsentenceproductionbothinBroca’sandWernicke’saphasia,suggestingtherelationshipbetweenlexicalandsyntacticmechanismsisfarmorecomplexthanalexicallydrivenaccountimplies.
Paragrammatism
TheyalsonotetheunderlyingsentenceproductiondeficitsseemtobedifferentforbothBroca’sandWernicke’saphasicsubjects.InWernicke’saphasia,theysuggestthedifficultyisanaccessingandself‐monitoringfailure.InBroca’saphasia,theysuggestthedifficultyisinretrievinggrammaticalmorphemes.
(Faroqi‐ShahandThompson,2002:412‐426)
