...
首页> 外文期刊>Aphasiology >Morphological vs. phonological explanations for affix errors in agrammatism
【24h】

Morphological vs. phonological explanations for affix errors in agrammatism

机译:语文与语音解释语法误差

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

Background: There has been no consensus as to what explains the well-attested problems with inflection in individuals with agrammatic aphasia. Some studies point to a predominantly phonological influence while others view morphological factors as primary.Aims: The present study aims to investigate what morphological and phonological factors influence the production of inflectional suffixes in agrammatism.Methods & Procedures: Seven non-dysarthric and non-apraxic English-speaking agrammatic patients (mean age 53.2 years, range 35-69 years, at least 2 years post onset) were given a production task in which the morphological or phonological complexity of the environment of the inflectional morpheme was varied.Outcomes & Results: Analysis indicates that morphological factors (number and type of morpheme, real vs. pseudo stems), rather than phonological factors (sonority, suffix syllabicity, stem length) resulted in significantly higher error rates.Conclusion: Once morphological and phonological influences are teased apart in a controlled experiment, we see that morphological environments in the production of affixed forms in agrammatic aphasia play a greater role than phonological factors.
机译:背景:对于用Agrammatic失语症的个体拐点解释良好的问题并没有达成共识。一些研究指出了主要的语音影响,而其他研究则认为作为主要的形态因素。目前的研究旨在调查形态学和语音因素影响原子率的折射后缀。方法和程序:七种非缺陷和非暂停讲英语的护理患者(平均53.2岁,范围35-69岁,至少2年后发作)的生产任务,其中拐点的形态的环境的形态学或语音复杂性是不同的。更多和结果:分析表明形态因素(语素的数量和类型,真实与伪茎),而不是语音因素(超声,后缀音节,茎长)导致了显着更高的误差率。结论:一旦形态学和语音影响分开一个受控实验,我们看到了在阿格拉的粘贴形式的生产中的形态环境MMATIC aphasia比语音因素发挥更大的作用。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号