Presupposition and Implication of Truth: Linguistic Deficits following Early Brain Lesions

Twenty-four children (4-17 years) with unilateral left (N = 14) or right (N = 10) hemisphere damage and 24 age-matched controls were tested on their ability to presuppose the truth of factive sentences e.g., "Max knew that he locked the door," and to infer the truth or falsity of implicative sentences "Max remembered to lock the door." Experimental sentence types varied according to the type of inference, the semantic features of the verb (factive vs. implicative), the presence and type of negation (lexical or syntactic), and the syntax of the complement (tensed or infinitive). Relative to age-matched controls, left lesion subjects were deficient in both their presupposition and implication performance, particularly when such inferences required the computation of negation scope. Right lesion subjects exhibited a somewhat more selective deficit; one limited to implication, but not presupposition, and one limited to lexical but not syntactic forms of negation.

[1]  Michael P Maratsos,et al.  A developmental study of factivity and negation in complex syntax , 1978, Journal of Child Language.

[2]  H. Gardner,et al.  Inference deficits in right brain-damaged patients , 1986, Brain and Language.

[3]  Richard Jackson Harris,et al.  Children's comprehension of complex sentences , 1975 .

[4]  M. Dennis,et al.  Language acquisition following hemidecortication: Linguistic superiority of the left over the right hemisphere , 1976, Brain and Language.

[5]  D. Aram,et al.  Comprehension and Imitation of Syntax Following Early Hemisphere Damage , 1994, Brain and Language.

[6]  Stella Vosniadou,et al.  Drawing inferences from semantically positive and negative implicative predicates , 1982 .

[7]  D. Aram,et al.  Unilateral brain lesions in childhood: Performance on the revised token test , 1987, Brain and Language.

[8]  D. Aram,et al.  Limits to a left hemisphere explanation for specific language impairment. , 1994, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[9]  H. Gardner,et al.  The comprehension of metaphor in brain-damaged patients. , 1977, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[10]  P. Carrell.  INFERENCING IN ESL: PRESUPPOSITIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF FACTIVE AND IMPLICATIVE PREDICATES , 1984 .

[11]  R. Falmagne,et al.  Children's Linguistic Intuitions about Factive Presuppositions. , 1994 .

[12]  P. Hornby.  Surface structure and presupposition , 1974 .

[13]  D. Aram,et al.  Differential effects of early hemisphere damage on lexical comprehension and production , 1993 .

[14]  R P Scoville,et al.  Children's understanding of factive presuppositions: an experiment and a review. , 1980, Journal of child language.

[15]  H. H. Clark,et al.  Drawing inferences from the presuppositions and implications of affirmative and negative sentences , 1973 .

[16]  A Developmental Study of Children's Comprehension of Negation in Complex Sentences Involving Clauses , 1987 .

[17]  Susan L. Tavakolian,et al.  Language acquisition and linguistic theory , 1981 .

[18]  N. Foldi,et al.  Appreciation of pragmatic interpretations of indirect commands: Comparison of right and left hemisphere brain-damaged patients , 1987, Brain and Language.

[19]  D. Natsopoulos.  Processing implications and presuppositions by schoolchildren and adults: A developmental cross-linguistic comparison , 1987 .

[20]  Maureen Dennis,et al.  Capacity and strategy for syntactic comprehension after left or right hemidecortication , 1980, Brain and Language.

[21]  Howard Gardner,et al.  Comprehension of humorous and nonhumorous materials by left and right brain-damaged patients , 1986, Brain and Cognition.

[22]  D. Molfese,et al.  The processing of presuppositional information contained in sentences: Electrophysiological correlates , 1992, Brain and Language.