首页> 外文OA文献 >Understanding discourse-linked elements in aphasia: A threefold study in Russian
【2h】

Understanding discourse-linked elements in aphasia: A threefold study in Russian

机译:理解失语症中与话语相关的元素:俄语的三方面研究

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Background: Agrammatic speakers have problems with grammatical encoding and decoding. However, not all syntactic processes are equally problematic: present time reference, who questions, and reflexives can be processed by narrow syntax alone and are relatively spared compared to past time reference, which questions, and personal pronouns, respectively. The latter need additional access to discourse and information structures to link to their referent outside the clause (Avrutin, 2006). Linguistic processing that requires discourse-linking is difficult for agrammatic individuals: verb morphology with reference to the past is more difficult than with reference to the present (Bastiaanse et al., 2011). The same holds for which questions compared to who questions and for pronouns compared to reflexives (Avrutin, 2006). These results have been reported independently for different populations in different languages. The current study, for the first time, tested all conditions within the same population. Aims: We had two aims with the current study. First, we wanted to investigate whether discourse-linking is the common denominator of the deficits in time reference, wh questions, and object pronouns. Second, we aimed to compare the comprehension of discourse-linked elements in people with agrammatic and fluent aphasia. Methods and procedures: Three sentence-picture-matching tasks were administered to 10 agrammatic, 10 fluent aphasic, and 10 non-brain-damaged Russian speakers (NBDs): (1) the Test for Assessing Reference of Time (TART) for present imperfective (reference to present) and past perfective (reference to past), (2) the Wh Extraction Assessment Tool (WHEAT) for which and who subject questions, and (3) the Reflexive-Pronoun Test (RePro) for reflexive and pronominal reference. Outcomes and results: NBDs scored at ceiling and significantly higher than the aphasic participants. We found an overall effect of discourse-linking in the TART and WHEAT for the agrammatic speakers, and in all three tests for the fluent speakers. Scores on the RePro were at ceiling. Conclusions: The results are in line with the prediction that problems that individuals with agrammatic and fluent aphasia experience when comprehending sentences that contain verbs with past time reference, which question words and pronouns are caused by the fact that these elements involve discourse linking. The effect is not specific to agrammatism, although it may result from different underlying disorders in agrammatic and fluent aphasia. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
机译:背景:语法使用者在语法编码和解码方面存在问题。但是,并不是所有的句法过程都同样有问题:现在的时间参考,谁提问和反身可以单独使用狭义的句法处理,并且与过去的时间参考(分别是疑问句和人称代词)相比可以相对节省。后者需要更多的话语权和信息结构,以使其与本条款之外的指称对象相关联(Avrutin,2006年)。对于语法个体而言,需要话语链接的语言处理是困难的:参照过去的动词形态比参照现在的动词形态更困难(Bastiaanse等,2011)。对于哪些问题与谁的问题相比,对于代词和与反身词相比,代词也是如此(Avrutin,2006)。已经针对不同人群以不同语言独立报告了这些结果。当前的研究首次测试了同一人群中的所有状况。目的:本研究有两个目的。首先,我们想研究话语链接是否是时间参照,疑问句和宾语代词不足的共同点。其次,我们的目的是比较语法和流利性失语症患者的语篇关联元素的理解。方法和步骤:对10名语法,10名流利的失语症患者和10名无脑损伤的俄语使用者(NBD)进行了3个句子图片匹配任务:(1)目前不完美的时间评估基准测试(TART) (参考现在)和过去完成词(参考过去),(2)谁和谁提出问题的Wh提取评估工具(WHEAT),以及(3)自反代词测试(RePro)作为自反和代词参考。结果与结果:NBD得分最高,明显高于无意识参与者。我们发现,在TART和WHEAT中,话语链接对于语法讲者具有总体效果,而在所有三项测试中,对于流利者而言都具有总体效果。 RePro的分数最高。结论:该结果符合以下预测:具有语法和流利性失语症的个体在理解包含带有过去时间参考的动词的句子时会遇到问题,这些疑问词和代词是由于这些要素涉及语篇链接而引起的。尽管它可能是由于语法和流利性失语症的不同潜在疾病所致,但这种效果并非特定于语法。 (C)2014 Elsevier Ltd.保留所有权利。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

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