Search

To account for cross-linguistic differences in agrammatism, Bates and her colleagues have employed the Competition Model, proposing that the cue validity and cue costs of a grammatical morpheme in a particular language will directly affect how agrammatism is manifested. Using Goodglass et al.'s (1993) Morphosyntax Battery in English and a translated version in Spanish, we analyzed the use of equivalent grammatical structures in production and comprehension by agrammatic speakers of the two languages. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests revealed that the relative order of difficulty in both production and comprehension of various grammatical morphemes was the same for both Spanish- and English-speaking agrammatic patients, with two exceptions: (1) the Spanish-speaking agrammatics were relatively better at producing subject-verb agreement, and (2) the Spanish speakers were significantly worse at comprehending both active and passive voice sentences. The Competition Model can explain the performance differences regarding subject-verb agreement and comprehension of active voice sentences, but it cannot account for the differences seen in comprehending passive voice sentences.

Aphasic patients have been generally assumed to produce coherent narratives, despite their numerous surface structure deficits. The current study is designed to analyze three types of coherence violations (i.e., information gaps, repetitions of propositions, and irrelevant propositions) in the narratives of mildly impaired conduction, anemic, and Wernicke′s aphasics. Results reveal that the three aphasic groups produce qualitatively different patterns of coherence violations. It is hypothesized that these coherence violations reflect adaptive strategies used by the aphasic patients to compensate for their underlying impairments. While the anemic and conduction aphasics appear to compensate for surface structure deficits, the Wernicke′s aphasics seem to have an underlying coherence deficit.

Seven agrammatic Broca's and seven paragrammatic conduction aphasics were evaluated on a free narrative story elicitation test and on a structured, cross-modal morphology and syntax battery (MSB). The latter permitted comparison of the same set of morphosyntactic forms in both production and comprehension. Results suggests distinctive oral production profiles, with agrammatics inferior to paragrammatics in use of auxiliaries, verb inflection and passive word order. Only agrammatics commonly omitted articles or main verbs. The use of noun plurals and possessivesdid not discriminate between the groups. The two groups did not differ in level of performance on MSB comprehension subtests, and the order of difficulty among the comprehension subtests was unrelated to their difficulty for production. This suggests that the source of agrammatic production errors is independent of comprehension errors. The production of targeted constructions on the MSB, an easily scored instrument, closely paralleled production in free narrative.