AGRAMMATISM in APHASIA: PRODUCTION and COMPREHENSION of ASPECT by ENGLISH-SPEAKING BROCA's APHASICS by KAREN LEE COLE BIEBER, B.A., M.A
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
AGRAMMATISM IN APHASIA: PRODUCTION AND COMPREHENSION OF ASPECT BY ENGLISH-SPEAKING BROCA'S APHASICS by KAREN LEE COLE BIEBER, B.A., M.A. A THESIS IN SPEECH AND HEARING SCIENCES Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE IN SPEECH AND HEARING SCIENCES Approv.ed Accepted December, 1992 ACKNOWLEDGE:MENTS ~ v" ,. I It is a pleasure to acknowledge the support - both professional and personal-of a number of individuals. They have made the past three years in the Department of Communication Disorders both challenging and enjoyable. I am very grateful to Dr. Curt E. Hamre, who was not only my thesis committee chairman, a consistently helpful critic and editor, but an exemplary teacher. He was never less than enthusiastic to read my research at all its stages along the way and offer frequent advice. I found his kind comments to be especially encouraging. I am also indebted to committee member Dr. William E. Ham for allowing me to extend his study to the population of aphasics and for devoting a great deal of time to helping me with statistical analysis of the data. He was generous, as well, in allowing me access to his computer and office on a number of occasions to run subjects for the study. I am appreciative of committee member Dr. John Muma for his input and for quickly getting his comments back to me so I could make the necessary corrections. Special thanks must also be extended to the individuals who served as subjects in this study and to their families for their eager participation. It is hoped that their contributions will extend our knowledge of the way in which language is organized in the brain as well as our knowledge of the depth of impairment in the disability of aphasia. I am thankful as well for the help I received from local speech-language pathologists who assisted me in locating subjects for the study, Judi Keller, Linda Patton, Marcia McBeth, Elaine Gomez and Nelda King. Thanks also is extended to Bob Jones for allowing me to come into his clinic to test two of the subjects. It is with love and gratitude that I thank my parents, Richard and Kathryn Cole. They have instilled in me a lifelong love of language and learning. They encouraged me to pursue this interest from the time I was an early teenager with their own love of books and words. They set an excellent example for me. Most of all, I would like to express my love and appreciation to my husband Mike. His encouragement and support over almost four years enabled me to achieve this goal. He also tirelessly read and reread the manuscript of this thesis and gave me comments and suggestions which were extremely helpful, especially during periods of ''writer's block." He is truly my best friend. .. 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS ~C~O~EJ:><:JE~NT~ ........................................................................................ ii AB~~CT................................................................................................................ " LI~T OF TABLE~ ..................................................................................................... "i CHAPTER I. INTROJ:>UCTION R~"i~~ <>1f Li~re1t11~ ................................................................................. 1 Linguistic J:>efmition of Broca's ~phasia. .................................... 1 Neurological J:>efmition of Broca's ~phasia ................................ 7 ~grammatism in Broca's ~phasia ................................................ 7 E"iclence firom J?rocluction ................................................ 7 E"iclence firom Comprehension ....................................... 11 Synta.ctic Modules ....................................................................... 13 E"iclence in Support of Moclularity Hypothesis .............. 13 E"iclence Contrary to Moclularity Hypothesis ................ 14 Linguistic Regression .................................................................. 16 E"iclence in Support of Linguistic Regression Hypothesis ........................................................... 16 E"iclence Contrary to the Linguistic Regression Hypothesis ........................................................... 17 ~t(l~lllellt e>jf ~<>l>leill .............................................................................. 1~ ~ypC>tlleses .............................................................................................. 1~ ][[. ~1r1ti<:>J:> ........................................................................................................ ~() ~11l>jec:~ ....•...............•..........................•.....•.....................•...............•...•...~() ][)~si~Il ....•...............•.............•...........•.................................................•.... ~~ l?Jr<>cill~ti()ll ................................................................................... ~~ C::C>IIlJlrelleilsiC>Il .....•..................................................................... ~:3 Ill~I1fie~ ..................................................................................... ~~ ReJl~titi<>ll .................................................................................... ~4 1?1r<>~ecl11re:s ............................................................................................... ~() ][)Cttct ~~~:)~8 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ~~ ]][[. ~~~~~ •......•....•.••••............•.....•...•....•.•.......................•..•.•.......................... ~() 1\l.licr<>(;<>IIlJ>ll~r ~etti<>n S~<Jllen(;e:) .................................................... 3() l?r<>clll<;tie>Il Tauslc .......................................................................... ~() I~rati"e "ersus Semelfacti"~ ~ctions ............................ 33 Telic "ersus ~~lie ~ctions.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... .. 36 J:>urati"e "ersus Nondurati"e ~ctions ............................. 41 C::<>IIlJ>rellellsi<>Il T~ .................................................................. 4!5 I~rati"e "ersus Semelfacti"e ~ctions ............................. 45 T~lic v~rsus ~telic ~ctions ............................................. 51 iii Durative versus Nondurative Actions ............................. 55 1Jndf<>I1Il~ Ill~I1fi~~ .................................................................................. !)~ ~~~titi<>Il ~au)}(....................................................................................... ()() ~- DI~C::~~~I<:>l'l ............................................................................................... ()~ c:Jr<>llJ> Di11f~~11~s .................................................................................. ()~ Computer-Assisted Production and Comprehension ~au)ks .................... 68 Aspect and the Frequency of An Action (Iterative versus Semelfactive) ....................................... 69 Aspect and c:Jo~ Accomplishment (Telic versus Ate.lic) ....................................................... 69 Aspect and Duration (Durative versus Nondurative) ........................................ ~1 1Jndf<>I1Il~ Illtei1fi~~ ................................................................................... ~l ~epetition ~au)k ....................................................................................... 73 Agrammatism in Broca's Aphau)ia ......................................................... ~~ Broca's AphMia and Syntactic Modules ................................................ 8() Broca's AphMia and Linguistic ~egression ........................................... 80 Limitations of the Present Study........................................................... 81 Implication for Future ~esea.rch ............................................................. 84 V. SUMMAAY Al'1D CONCL~SIONS ............................................................ 85 ~~~NC~~ ......................................................................................................... ~~ APP~NDIC~S A. FORM FOR RECORDING S~BJECT RESPONS~S ................................. 9() B. DIRECTIONS ~S~D BY ~XAMINER ~0 D~SCRIB~ ACTIONS .......... 91 C. ~~STIONS PO~~J:> ~0 S~~~S ......................................................... 9~ D. S~Nl'ENC~S FO~ REP~TITION ............................................................... 93 ~. CONS~NT FOR RELEASE OF INFORMATION (MEDICAURECORDS RELEAS~) .......................................... 94 F. C~~TIFICATION OF S~~~ CONSENT.............................................. 95 c:J. CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION BY THE HUMAN S~JEC~S COM~'I*I'EE ............................................................................. ~() H. STUDY EXPLAl'lATION FO~ SP~~CH- LAl'lc:J~Ac:JE PATHOLOOIS~S AND S~JECTS ......................................... 99 I. SUBJEC~ DIRECTIONS FO~ MIC~OCOMPUTE~ ~ASKS ................ 100 J. R.ANc:J~ OF RESPONSES BY APHASIC, ClllLD AND ADUL~ S~JEC~S DURINc:J MIC~OCOMPUTE~ P~OD~CTION ~ASK .............................................................. l () 1 K. R.ANc:J~ OF VERBS UTILIZED BY APHASIC S~JECTS DURINc:J INFORMAL INTE~VIEW ...................................... 1()8 L. TRANSCRIPT OF APHASIC S~JECTS' RESPONS~S DURINc:J INTERVIEW ............................................................................ 1()5) iv ABSTRACT This study was an investigation of aspectual competence in English-speaking Broca's Aphasics, normal adults and children. Microcomputer-assisted production and comprehension tasks presented