Clinical syndromes are not God's gift to cognitive neuropsychology: A reply to a rebuttal to an answer to a response to the case against syndrome-based research

In this paper we consider several issues about single-patient versus syndrome-based research in response to E. Zurif, D. Swinney, and J. A. Fodor's (1991, Brain and Cognition, 16, 198-210) criticism of A. Caramazza and W. Badecker (1989, Brain and Cognition, 10, 256-295). We argue that these authors have failed to provide convincing arguments in favor of syndrome-based research. In particular, we show that the specific example--a study by D. Swinney, E. Zurif, and J. Nicol (1989, Journal of Cognitive Neurosciences, 1, 25-37)--given by these authors as a demonstration of the usefulness of syndrome-based research to inform theories of normal language processing does not in fact serve this purpose.

[1]  Randi C. Martin,et al.  Syntactic loss versus processing deficit: An assessment of two theories of agrammatism and syntactic comprehension deficits , 1989, Cognition.

[2]  J. Fodor,et al.  An evaluation of assumptions underlying the single-patient-only position in neuropsychological research: A reply , 1991, Brain and Cognition.

[3]  J. Fodor.  The Modularity of mind. An essay on faculty psychology , 1986 .

[4]  Alfonso Caramazza,et al.  The logic of neuropsychological research and the problem of patient classification in aphasia , 1984, Brain and Language.

[5]  H. Gardner,et al.  The case against the case against group studies , 1989, Brain and Cognition.

[6]  Alfonso Caramazza,et al.  Theory and methodology in cognitive neuropsychology: A response to our critics , 1988 .

[7]  D. Swinney.  Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)consideration of context effects , 1979 .

[8]  A. Caramazza,et al.  Varieties of Sentence Comprehension Deficits: A Case Study , 1991, Cortex.

[9]  D. Swinney,et al.  The Effects of Focal Brain Damage on Sentence Processing: an examination of the neurological organization of a mental module , 1989, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[10]  S. E. Blumstein,et al.  Processing of lexical ambiguities in aphasia , 1987, Brain and Language.

[11]  Alfonso Caramazza,et al.  Selective impairment of thematic role assignment in sentence processing , 1991, Brain and Language.

[12]  A. Caramazza.  On drawing inferences about the structure of normal cognitive systems from the analysis of patterns of impaired performance: The case for single-patient studies , 1986, Brain and Cognition.

[13]  Alfonso Caramazza,et al.  On considerations of method and theory governing the use of clinical categories in neurolinguistics and cognitive neuropsychology: The case against agrammatism , 1985, Cognition.

[14]  S. Blumstein,et al.  Lexical decision and aphasia: Evidence for semantic processing , 1981, Brain and Language.

[15]  Mark S. Seidenberg,et al.  Evidence for Multiple Stages in the Processing of Ambiguous Words in Syntactic Contexts. , 1979 .

[16]  Y. Grodzinsky.  Language deficits and the theory of syntax , 1986, Brain and Language.

[17]  A. Caramazza,et al.  Patient classification in neuropsychological research , 1989, Brain and Cognition.