Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T23:14:46.457Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The role of lexical co-occurrence in aphasic sentence production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Susan E. Kohn  and
Ana Cragnolino
Susan E. Kohn*
Affiliation:
Rehabilitation Research Institute
Ana Cragnolino
Affiliation:
Rehabilitation Research Institute
*
Susan Kohn, 1411 Westwood Lane, Wynnewood, PA 19096. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study explores the notion that learned associations based on lexical co-occurrence probability influence sentence planning and, consequently, may contribute to the ability of aphasic speakers to produce well-formed sentences. To encourage aphasic speakers to rely on such associations, the subjects were administered a sentence generation task in which an uninflected transitive verb was the sole basis for sentence planning. Performance by normal control speakers was used to identify verb-noun pairs reflecting some degree of lexical association. The aphasic subjects tended to use proportionately fewer associated word pairs in their sentences. The level of associate use was not correlated with either their picture naming scores or their performance on a test of semantic judgment. Finally, despite the aphasic subjects' below normal production of associated word pairs on sentence generation, when nouns associated with the target verbs were included in the sentences, performance was less anomalous for each subject. These findings are used to explore how a network of lexical associates might facilitate sentence processing.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 19 , Issue 4 , October 1998 , pp. 631 - 646
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Breen, K., & Warrington, E. K. (1994). A study of anomia: Evidence for a distinction between nominal and prepositional language. Cortex. 30, 231–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caramazza, A. (1995). The representation of lexical knowledge in the brain. In Broadwell, R. D. (Ed.), Neuroscience, memory, and language. Decade of the Brain (Vol. 1). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Chiarello, C., Burgess, C., Richards, L., & Pollock, A. (1990). Semantic and associative priming in the cerebral hemispheres: Some words do, some words don't… sometimes, some places. Brain and Language, 38, 75–104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dowty, D. (1982). Grammatical relations and Montague grammar. In Jacobson, P. & Pullum, G. (Eds.), The nature of syntactic representation. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Glosser, G., & Friedman, R. B. (1991). Lexical but not semantic priming in Alzheimer's disease. Psychology and Aging, 6, 522–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Francis, W. N., & Kucera, H. (1982). Frequency analysis of English usage: Lexicon and grammar. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Kaplan, E., Goodglass, H., & Weintraub, S. (1983). The Boston Naming Test. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger.Google Scholar
Kohn, S. E., & Cragnolino, A. (1995). Sentence-based anomia. Brain and Language, 51, 214–217.Google Scholar
Kohn, S. E., & Cragnolino, A. (in press). The role of preferred argument structure for understanding aphasic sentence planning. In Ashby, W. J., DuBois, J., & Kumpf, L. (Eds.), Preferred argument structure: The next generation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kohn, S. E., Cragnolino, A., & Pustejovsky, J. (1997). The effects of agrammatism on the interaction between verb and noun selection during sentence planning. Aphasiology, 11, 157–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohn, S. E., & Goodglass, H. (1985). Picture-naming in aphasia. Brain and Language, 24, 266–283.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lund, K., Burgess, C., & Atchley, R. A. (1995). Semantic and associative priming in high-dimensional semantic space. Cognitive Science Proceedings. 660–665.Google Scholar
Manning, L., & Warrington, E. K. (1996). Two routes to naming: A case study. Neuropsychologia, 34, 809–817.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nicholas, L. E., Brookshire, R. H., MacLennan, D. L., Schumacher, J. G., & Porrazzo, S. A. (1989). Revised administration and scoring procedures for the Boston Naming Test and norms for non-brain-damaged adults. Aphasiology, 3, 569–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, K., & Schewell, C. (1987). Speak and spell: Dissociations and word-class effects. In Coltheart, M., Sartori, G. & Job, R. (Eds.), The cognitive neuropsychology of language (pp. 273–294). London: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Resnik, P. (1996). Selectional constraints: An information-theoretic model and its computational realization. Cognition, 61, 127–159.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schweickert, J., & Sherman, J. C. (1988). Lexical impairments in agrammatism: Evidence from a meaning-similarity judgment task. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Shelton, J. R., & Martin, R. C. (1992). How semantic is automatic semantic priming? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Language, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 1191–1210.Google ScholarPubMed
Trueswell, J. C, & Kim, A. E. (1996). A distributed model for computing thematic role preferences. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Zingeser, L. B., & Beradt, R. S. (1988). Grammatical class and context effects in a case of pure anomia: Implications for models of language production. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 5, 473–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar