Grammatical class effects in relation to normal and aphasic sentence processing

Agrammatic, Broca's aphasic patients, Wernicke's aphasic patients, and neurologically intact control subjects were asked to detect target letters in prose passages and in a scrambled word passage. The targets were embedded, in some instances, in content words (open-class vocabulary items), and in other instances, in function words (closed-class vocabulary items). With respect to the prose passages, both the control subjects and Wernicke's aphasic patients were more apt to notice target letters when they appeared in the open-class items than when in closed-class items; by contrast, the agrammatic Broca's patients showed no vocabulary class detection difference. The Wernicke's patients were not entirely normal, however: Whereas the normal subjects showed a much smaller vocabulary class effect for letter detection in the scrambled condition, the Wernicke's maintained the pattern they had shown in the prose condition. These and other findings obtained on the letter cancellation task are discussed in relation to lexical access mechanisms geared to sentence parsing.

[1]  Merrill F. Garrett,et al.  10 – Remarks on the Relation between Language Production and Language Comprehension Systems , 1982 .

[2]  S Abramovici,et al.  Errors in proofreading: Evidence for syntactic control of letter processing? , 1983, Memory & cognition.

[3]  The processing of printed language by aphasic adults: some phonological and syntactic effects. , 1982, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[4]  A. Caramazza,et al.  Dissociation of algorithmic and heuristic processes in language comprehension: Evidence from aphasia , 1976, Brain and Language.

[5]  Michael A. Arbib,et al.  Neural Models of Language Processes , 1982 .

[6]  Merrill F. Garrett,et al.  Hemisphere differences in the recognition of closed and open class words , 1983, Neuropsychologia.

[7]  Myrna F Schwartz,et al.  The word order problem in agrammatism II. Production , 1980, Brain and Language.

[8]  M. Schwartz,et al.  The word order problem in agrammatism I. Comprehension , 1980, Brain and Language.

[9]  Yosef Grodzinsky,et al.  Sensitivity to grammatical structure in agrammatic aphasics: A reply to Linebarger, Schwartz and Saffran , 1983, Cognition.

[10]  M. Garrett Levels of processing in sentence production , 1980 .

[11]  Angela D. Friederici,et al.  Aphasics' perception of words in sentential context: Some real-time processing evidence , 1983, Neuropsychologia.

[12]  Robert M. Schindler,et al.  Error in proofreading: Evidence of syntactic control of letter processing? , 1981 .

[13]  Phyllis Ross Phonological processing during silent reading in aphasic patients , 1983, Brain and Language.

[14]  Alice F. Healy,et al.  Detection errors onthe andand: Evidence for reading units larger than the word , 1977, Memory & cognition.

[15]  A. Healy,et al.  Detection errors on the word the: evidence for reading units larger than letters. , 1976, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[16]  Alfonso Caramazza,et al.  Lexical decision for open- and closed-class words: Failure to replicate differential frequency sensitivity , 1982, Brain and Language.

[17]  Juan Segui,et al.  The word frequency effect and lexical access , 1982, Neuropsychologia.

[18]  Harold Goodglass,et al.  1 – Is Agrammatism a Unitary Phenomenon?* , 1985 .

[19]  Myrna F. Schwartz,et al.  Sensitivity to grammatical structure in so-called agrammatic aphasics , 1983, Cognition.

[20]  D. Bradley,et al.  Computational distinctions of vocabulary type , 1978 .