Download The representation of lexical-syntactic information

In press in Cortex doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2011.05.024
a
Lexical-syntactic information in aphasia
The representation of lexical-syntactic information: Evidence from
subcategorization are lexical properties that determine which arguments and phrases can and
syntactic and lexical retrieval impairments in aphasia
should occur with the verb. Similarly in the noun domain, the grammatical gender of a noun
Michal Birana,b and Naama Friedmanna
is a lexical property that determines in many languages the inflection of various constituents
b
Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel, Loewenstein Hospital Rehabilitation Center, Ra’anana, Israel
in the sentence that agree with the noun.
The lexicon includes (only) idiosyncratic properties of lexical items, that is,
This study explored lexical-syntactic information – syntactic information that is stored in the
lexicon – and its relation to syntactic and lexical impairments in aphasia. We focused on two
types of lexical-syntactic information: predicate argument structure (PAS) of verbs (the
number and types of arguments the verb selects) and grammatical gender of nouns. The
participants were 17 Hebrew-speaking individuals with aphasia who had a syntactic deficit
(agrammatism) or a lexical retrieval deficit (anomia) located at the semantic lexicon, the
phonological output lexicon, or the phonological output buffer. After testing the participants'
syntactic and lexical retrieval abilities and establishing the functional loci of their deficits,
we assessed their PAS and grammatical gender knowledge. This assessment included
sentence completion, sentence production, sentence repetition, and grammaticality judgment
tasks. The participants' performance on these tests yielded several important dissociations.
Three agrammatic participants had impaired syntax but unimpaired PAS knowledge. Three
agrammatic participants had impaired syntax but unimpaired grammatical gender
knowledge. This indicates that lexical-syntactic information is represented separately from
syntax, and can be spared even when syntax at the sentence level, such as embedding and
movement are impaired. All 5 individuals with phonological output buffer impairment and
all 3 individuals with phonological output lexicon impairment had preserved lexicalsyntactic knowledge. These selective impairments indicate that lexical-syntactic information
is represented at a lexical stage prior to the phonological lexicon and the phonological buffer.
Three participants with impaired PAS (aPASia) and impaired grammatical gender who
showed intact lexical-semantic knowledge indicate that the lexical-syntactic information is
represented separately from the semantic lexicon. This led us to conclude that lexicalsyntactic information is stored in a separate syntactic lexicon. A double dissociation between
PAS and grammatical gender impairments indicated that different types of lexical-syntactic
information are represented separately in this syntactic lexicon.
everything that does not stem from general principles of Universal Grammar or of a specific
language (Chomsky, 1995). For example, the fact that verbs in certain languages are followed
by their complements (I ate pasta and not I pasta ate) is a general property of those
languages (head-first languages) and therefore not part of the lexical knowledge about each
verb. In contrast, the set of complements that can follow a particular verb is an idiosyncratic
property of that verb, hence part of the verb’s lexical entry. Similarly, a particular noun’s
grammatical gender is an idiosyncratic property and therefore has to be listed in its lexical
entry.
In this study, we explored the relations between single-word retrieval and sentence
construction by looking at this interface between them, the lexical-syntactic information.
More specifically, we asked two main questions about this relation: one was whether lexicalsyntactic information is independent of sentence structure building beyond the verb phrase,
by testing whether lexical-syntactic information can be preserved when syntax is impaired in
agrammatism; The other question was where in the lexical retrieval process is lexicalsyntactic information stored. This question was explored via the assessment of lexicalsyntactic information of individuals with impairments at various stages of lexical retrieval.
The basic rationale was that if an individual has a selective impairment located at a certain
1. Introduction
stage of the lexical retrieval process, then the status of lexical-syntactic information would be
Sentence construction and lexical retrieval of single words are two different
indicative as to the location of this information – if it is unimpaired, then the impaired stage is
processes, but there are close relations between them. One interface between them is the
not where the lexical syntactic information is stored. We focused on two types of lexical-
lexical-syntactic information – syntactic information that is stored in the lexicon. This lexical
syntactic information: predicate argument structure of verbs, and grammatical gender of
information dictates the syntactic environment in which a word can be inserted. Viewed
nouns. Another question that we asked was whether each of these types of lexical-syntactic
differently, this information about words, and especially about verbs, creates the syntactic
information are stored together, or whether they are stored separately, in which case one type
structure of the sentence. For example, the argument structure of a verb and its
of information can be selectively impaired, while the other type remains intact. Below we
briefly describe several approaches to what lexical-syntactic information includes and where
We thank our Language and Brain Lab members Aviah Gvion, Dror Dotan, Julia Reznick, and Maya Yachini
for stimulating and fruitful discussions of this research and paper, and Mali Gil for her support throughout the
study. We also deeply thank Lew Shapiro, whose deep and innovative research of predicate argument structure
inspired us and led us to conduct this study. This research was supported by the Israel Science Foundation (grant
no. 1296/06, Friedmann) and by the Joseph Sagol Fellowship Program for Brain Research in Tel Aviv
University.
it is stored in the lexical retrieval process.
2
Lexical-syntactic information in aphasia
3
Lexical-syntactic information in aphasia
1.1. Types of lexical-syntactic information
subcategorization stipulates the syntactic environments associated with verbs (and nouns) and
1.1.1. Predicate argument structure
hence constrains the verbs to well-formed environments. Unlike PAS and thematic grid,
The lexicon includes several types of information about arguments and complements of
subcategorization relates solely to the complements of the verb (the phrases that follow the
verbs: predicate argument structure, thematic grid, and subcategorization.
verb in the basic word order in languages like Hebrew and English) and does not include the
A verb’s predicate argument structure (PAS) specifies the number of arguments it
subject (Haegeman, 1994; Shapiro, 2000). For example, the verb push can only take a noun
takes. Different verbs require different numbers of arguments, depending on the number of
phrase (NP) as its complement, as illustrated in example (2a), and the verb depend can only
entities that can participate in an event described by the verb (see examples 1a-1c). Adding or
take a prepositional phrase (PP), as illustrated in (2b). The verb give takes NP and PP as its
omitting an argument creates an ungrammatical sentence. The verb sneeze, for example, can
complements (2c). Besides noun phrases and prepositional phrases, verbs can take sentences
take only one argument, the sneezer; hence, adding a second argument leads to an
as their complements. For example, the verb hear in sentence (2d) takes a sentence (CP) as its
ungrammatical sentence (e.g., *Danny sneezed Dana, where the asterisk marks
complement.
ungrammaticality). The verb push, on the other hand, requires two arguments (someone who
(2)
a. push [NP]
Danny pushed [NP the dancer]
pushes and someone or something that is being pushed); here, omitting one argument causes
b. depend [PP]
Danny depends [PP on the spell checker]
ungrammaticality (e.g., *Danny pushed). In the notation of PAS (example 1), the first
c. give [NP] [PP]
Danny gave [NP the book] [PP to the dancer]
argument (x) is an external argument that relates to the subject of the sentence (Danny in
d. hear [CP]
Danny heard [CP that Dana is writing a book]
these sentences), and y and z are the verb's complements. The common assumption is that
Thus, subcategorization differentiates among types of verbs. Verbs differ both with respect to
PAS information is part of the representation of the verb in the lexicon (e.g., Levelt, 1989,
the type of subcategorization they select and with respect to the number of subcategorization
1992; Shapiro, 1997, 2000; Shapiro et al., 1987), as it is an idiosyncratic property of the verb
options they allow. Whereas push and depend have only one subcategorization option,
(Haegeman, 1994).
discover has two subcategorization options. It can take either an NP or a CP as its
(1) a. one argument:
Danny sneezed
complement, as shown in example (3).
b. two arguments: push
(x,y)
Danny pushed the car
(3)
c. three arguments: give
(x,y,z)
Danny gave a book to Dana
sneeze (x)
a. Esther discovered [NP the story]
b. Esther discovered [CP that the story is real]
Different arguments also have different semantic roles in relation to the verb. This
In addition to the different arguments, a sentence can include adjuncts – phrases that are not
fact is encoded in a verb’s thematic grid – that is, the thematic roles assigned to the
arguments of the verb, but are rather optional phrases that add information, usually about the
arguments associated with the verb. Thematic roles (also known as theta roles or θ-roles) are
time, place, or manner of action. For example, the bracketed phrases in the sentence Anne
the roles played by the participants in an event. Very generally, they describe “who did what
wrote a book [in a charming apartment] [last year] are adjuncts. Unlike arguments, adjuncts
to whom” in the sentence. The main thematic roles include agent (the entity that performs the
do not contribute to the verb's thematic roles, are not part of its lexical representation, and can
action or brings about some change), theme (the entity that the action is performed upon), and
be omitted without violating the grammaticality of a sentence in which they occur (Shapiro et
goal (the entity that is the target of transfer or motion) (Chomsky, 1986; Grimshaw, 1979,
al., 1993).
2006; Pesetsky, 1991; Shapiro et al., 1987, 1989). For example, in sentence (1c) Danny is
assigned the agent role, book the theme role, and Dana the goal.
Another characterization that is taken to be part of each verb’s lexical entry is its
In sum, the lexical representation of a verb includes knowledge about its arguments:
the number of arguments it takes (its predicate argument structure); the thematic role of each
argument, describing “who did what to whom” in the sentence; and its subcategorization
subcategorization frame, which specifies the number and syntactic types of phrases that can
frame, which specifies the syntactic types of phrases that can complement the verb.
complement a verb (Chomsky, 1965; Friederici, 1995; Grimshaw, 1979). That is,
1.1.1.1. The psycholinguistics of predicate argument structure
4
Lexical-syntactic information in aphasia
5
Lexical-syntactic information in aphasia
The complexity of a verb’s PAS and its subcategorization frame has been shown to affect
structures. However, these studies required an oral response, which might have been affected
access to its lexical entry in response-time studies as well as in brain imaging techniques
by the participants' word retrieval deficits and by their deficit in producing embedded
(Shapiro et al., 1987, 1989, 1991, 1993; Shapiro and Levine, 1990; Shetreet et al., 2007,
sentences (sentences with a CP argument), as some of the verbs used in these studies had CP
2009a, 2009b, 2010a). Shapiro and his colleagues found that access to argument structure of
complements. (We will return to this point in the Discussion.)
verbs is exhaustive, and hence, accessing verbs with more argument structure options induces
A deficit in PAS knowledge has been reported for individuals with Wernicke's
longer reaction times in a secondary task. This was found for individuals without language
aphasia. Edwards (2002) tested PAS knowledge in three individuals with Wernicke's aphasia
impairment, and, crucially, also for individuals with Broca’s aphasia. Shapiro and his
using a picture description task, and reports omission of obligatory arguments and incorrect
colleagues found that individuals with Broca’s aphasia, who have a syntactic deficit at the
thematic role assignment in production.
sentence level, have intact PAS knowledge, as indicated by their showing the same effect of
verb complexity as healthy adults. In contrast, individuals with Wernicke’s aphasia were
The picture emerging from imaging studies and aphasia research thus converge to
suggest that Wernicke's area, but not Broca's area, is responsible for PAS knowledge, and
found to have impaired PAS knowledge; they do not exhibit the normal PAS complexity
hence individuals with agrammatism may have intact PAS knowledge whereas individuals
effect in lexical access (Shapiro and Levine, 1990). These results are further supported by
with a damage in Wernicke's area show PAS impairment (aPASia). We do not know how
results from imaging studies. Shetreet et al. (2007, 2010a) found brain areas that are more
individuals with various types of anomia process PAS. In the current study, we tested the
active when hearing a verb with more complementation options (subcategorization options).
knowledge of individuals with agrammatic aphasia and various types of anomia about the
Furthermore, whereas syntactic operations like Wh-movement are often found to activate
Broca’s area (Ben-Shachar et al., 2004; Grodzinsky, 2000, Shetreet et al., 2010b. But see
arguments of verbs, including their number and their syntactic and thematic properties. We
refer below to all of these properties using the general term predicate argument structure.
Wartenburger et al., 2003 who failed to find specific activation to syntactic operations in
Broca’s area), information about argument structure activates other brain areas, specifically
Wernicke’s area (Shetreet et al., 2007, 2009, 2010a). These behavioral and imaging findings
indicate a possible dissociation between syntactic processing and lexical-syntactic
information. Results from grammaticality judgment of PAS knowledge (more specifically,
subcategorization knowledge) in agrammatic aphasia reach similar conclusions. Linebarger et
al. (1983) found that their 4 agrammatic participants performed well on judgment of
subcategorization violations, indicating that the agrammatic participants, although impaired
in syntax, had preserved subcategorization knowledge.
1.1.2. Grammatical gender
In some languages, nouns are marked for grammatical gender. Unlike conceptual (natural)
gender of animate nouns (such as mother and father), for which gender assignment is
transparent and related to biological gender, the grammatical gender of inanimate nouns
(masculine, feminine, or neuter) is determined arbitrarily, without any relation to their
meaning. That is, grammatical gender is an arbitrary idiosyncratic lexical-syntactic property
of the noun, distinct from its semantic properties. There are two sources of evidence for the
arbitrariness of grammatical gender. One type of evidence comes from synonyms that refer to
Studies that examined the production of verbs with various PAS frames in
the same entity and carry different genders. For example, in Hebrew the moon has three
agrammatism (Broca’s aphasia) (Kim and Thompson, 2000; Thompson et al., 1997a) report
names, two of them masculine (yare’ax, sahar) and one feminine (levana). The second
that individuals with agrammatism performed better in producing verbs with one obligatory
source of evidence comes from words in different languages that refer to the same entity and
argument than in producing verbs with two or three obligatory arguments (and produced
carry different genders. For example, the word for ‘house’ is masculine in Hebrew and
verbs with two arguments better than verbs with three). They were better able to name verbs
Arabic (bayit, bayt), feminine in Italian and Spanish (casa), and neutral in German (Haus). In
with two arguments (two-place verbs) than verbs with three arguments (three-place verbs). In
addition, there was an effect of the number of argument structures a verb has: verbs with one
argument structure were produced better than verbs with several optional argument
some languages, grammatical gender is assigned primarily on the basis of the form of the
noun, such as its morphological suffix. For example, in Spanish most nouns ending in -o are
masculine, and most nouns ending in -a are feminine.
6
Lexical-syntactic information in aphasia
7
Lexical-syntactic information in aphasia
In many languages, the grammatical gender of the noun enters syntactic agreement
had information about the gender of the word even when they did not have phonological
relations with other elements in the phrase or sentence. In noun phrases, agreement occurs
information about it (for TOT states, see Caramazza and Miozzo, 1997; Miozzo and
between the head noun and a determiner, an adjective, and so on. In sentences, agreement
Caramazza, 1997; Vigliocco et al., 1997; for results from anomia, see Avila et al., 2001;
occurs between the subject (and in some languages also the object) and the predicate (a verb,
Badecker et al., 1995; Costa et al., 1999; Henaff Gonon et al., 1989; Kulke and Blanken,
a copula, or an adjectival predicate) or between a noun phrase (NP) and a pronoun that refers
2001). Namely, these participants had preserved lexical-syntactic information – grammatical
to it.
gender knowledge – although they had incomplete or deficient phonological information. Can
Hebrew, the language tested in the current study, has two genders for both animate
this result indicate where lexical-syntactic information is stored? Specifically, does it indicate
and inanimate nouns: masculine and feminine. Most feminine nouns are marked with a suffix
that gender information is stored separately from the phonological output lexicon? To
(-a, -et, or -it), and most masculine nouns are morphologically unmarked. Irregular nouns
exist in both genders – that is, feminine nouns without a suffix and masculine nouns with a
conclude on the basis of these findings that lexical-syntactic information is not stored in the
phonological output lexicon, it is necessary to prove that the locus of these participants’
suffix. Verbs, adjectives, and pronouns inflect for gender and agree with the noun they are
deficit was actually the phonological lexicon and not a later, post-lexical, stage of
syntactically connected to. An adjective almost invariably follows the noun it modifies, and
phonological processing, such as the phonological output buffer (a post-lexical phonological
the main verb usually follows the noun in subject position. The definite article (ha-, the
stage that assembles the information retrieved from the lexicon, and/or buffers it.) A deficit at
Hebrew word meaning ‘the’), which precedes the noun, is not inflected for gender.
the phonological lexicon is explicitly mentioned only for the anomic participants by Avila et
al. (2001), Henaff Gonon et al. (1989), and for the patient described by Badecker et al. (1995)
and Miozzo and Caramazza (1997).
1.1.2.1. The psycholinguistics of grammatical gender
Imaging studies are yet another source of evidence regarding the storage of
Some studies that tested agreement between the head of the subject NP and an
grammatical gender information and its separation from phonological information. The meta-
adjective in healthy individuals found that participants made fewer errors of agreement when
analysis performed by Indefrey and Levelt (2004) suggested that the middle section of the left
the gender of the subject was not only grammatical but also could be determined conceptually
middle temporal gyrus is related to the selection of an entry from the semantic lexicon
– that is, when the subject was animate (Deutsch et al., 1999 for Hebrew; Vigliocco and
(lemma, which includes grammatical gender information), whereas word-form (lexeme)
Franck, 1999 for Italian and French; Vigliocco and Zilli, 1999 for Italian). These findings
retrieval is related to other areas, including the left anterior insula and the posterior sections
suggest that conceptual information contributes to gender agreement accuracy. In the current
of the superior and middle temporal gyri of the left hemisphere. In an MEG study (Levelt et
study, we compared purely grammatical gender information, which is encoded at the lexical-
al., 1998), different time windows were found in a naming task for lemma selection (150-275
syntactic level, and conceptual gender, which can be determined by drawing on semantic
msec) and for phonological encoding (275-400 msec). Similar results were found by van
properties of the word, to examine whether conceptual gender information of animate, and
Turennout et al. (1998) in an ERP study.
specifically, human nouns can be spared when grammatical gender information of inanimate
nouns is impaired in people with aphasia.
Another path of studies examined the relation between grammatical gender and
lexical retrieval. Studies in various languages (e.g., Italian, French, Spanish, and German)
examined the knowledge speakers have about the grammatical gender of words they fail to
retrieve, both in tip-of-the-tongue (TOT) states of individuals without a language deficit and
for individuals with anomia. The findings from both populations indicated that the speakers
In the current study, we compared the ability to access lexical-syntactic information
of individuals with impairment in one of the levels of the lexical retrieval process – semantic
lexicon, phonological output lexicon, or phonological output buffer.
1.2. Where is the lexical-syntactic information stored?
Models of lexical retrieval describe the intact word production process and the possible loci
of deficits that cause word retrieval difficulties (see Fig. 1). These models suggest that the
first stage of this process is the formation of a conceptual representation, which is still not
8
Lexical-syntactic information in aphasia
9
Lexical-syntactic information in aphasia
formulated in words. This representation then activates a lexical-semantic representation in
Some researchers refer to lemma as the lexical representation in the semantic lexicon which
the semantic lexicon, a lexicon that is organized semantically and contains information about
includes the word’s lexical-syntactic information,1 and to lexeme as the lexical representation
the meaning of words, for example, about the semantic category, function, color, and size of
in the phonological output lexicon. Therefore, it is well-accepted that the lexical-syntactic
the items the words refer to. The selected semantic representation activates the lexical-
and phonological information are stored separately (Caramazza, 1997; Garrett, 1976; Levelt
phonological representation in the phonological output lexicon: the representation of the
et al., 1998; Roelofs, 1992, but see Caramazza and Hillis (1991) on grammatical category in
spoken form of the word, which includes metrical information (number of syllables and stress
the phonological lexicon). However, the relation between the lexical-syntactic and the
pattern) and segmental information (the phonemes of the word – consonants and vowels and
lexical-semantic information is controversial. Some researchers claim that the lemma
their relative position). This activation is in turn transferred to the phonological output buffer,
includes a word’s semantic representation as well as its syntactic representation (Kempen and
a post-lexical stage in which the word is assembled from its metrical frame and segments, and
Hoenkamp, 1987; Kempen and Huijbers, 1983; Levelt, 1989, 1992). Other researchers
which is responsible for morphological composition (Dotan and Friedmann, 2007, 2010;
assume that the lemma contains only the lexical-syntactic representation, separately from the
Kohn and Melvold, 2000). This buffer also holds the phonological representation until the
lexical-semantic representation (Bock and Levelt, 1994; Levelt et al., 1998; Roelofs, 1992).
word is produced (e.g., Biran and Friedmann, 2005; Butterworth, 1989, 1992; Dell, 1986,
As for the relation between lexical-syntactic information and phonological
1988; Garrett, 1976, 1992; Kempen and Huijbers, 1983; Levelt, 1989, 1992; Nickels, 1997;
information, whereas most researchers agree that they are represented separately, there are
Patterson and Shewell, 1987). Two separate phonological buffers exist – an input
various theories about the way information flows between them. Some researchers assume a
phonological buffer and an output phonological buffer (Franklin et al., 2002; Gvion and
serial model according to which phonological information is accessible only after lexical-
Friedmann, 2008; Shallice, et al., 2000; Shallice and Warrington, 1977). In the current study
syntactic information has been accessed. This model was called “Syntactic Mediation” by
we discuss only the phonological output buffer.
Caramazza (1997). According to this model, a person who has access to the lemma but not to
Conceptual
system
the lexeme has information about the syntactic properties of the word, even though s/he
cannot retrieve it, or retrieves it with a phonological error due to missing phonological
information. According to other approaches, the semantic representations activate the lexical-
Semantic
lexicon
syntactic representations and the lexical-phonological representations in parallel (Caramazza,
1997; Caramazza and Miozzo, 1997). This model, entitled “Independent Network”, predicts a
double dissociation: access to lexical-syntactic information with a deficit in accessing
Phonological output lexicon
metrical information:
number of syllables,
stress pattern
segmental information:
consonants, vowels,
relative position
phonological information, and access to phonological information with a deficit in accessing
lexical-syntactic information.
Thus, there are several approaches to the representation of lexical-syntactic
information. In this study, we will explore where this information is represented by
Phonological
output buffer
examining individuals with anomia who have deficits in various stages of lexical retrieval.
1
word production
Fig. 1 – Stages in lexical retrieval.
As lexical retrieval theories developed, the term lemma split into two: lemma had narrowed to refer to syntactic
representation, and the semantic representation was called lexical concept. Although Levelt et al. (1999) note
that this modification in terms does not signify a modification in the theory, it obviously has implications for
predictions about which selective impairments are possible as a result of deficits in different levels of lexical
processing – specifically, whether a lexical-semantic deficit is possible without a lexical-syntactic impairment
and vice versa.
10
Lexical-syntactic information in aphasia
11
Lexical-syntactic information in aphasia
1.3. How lexical-syntactic information interacts with syntax
complementizer CP-layer, which is responsible for embedded sentences, Wh-questions, and
According to Levelt et al. (1998, 1999), when the syntactic representation in the lexicon
other elements that undergo Wh-movement, and also for the verb when it moves to second
(which they term lemma) is retrieved, its syntax becomes accessible for forming a syntactic
position in the sentence, in sentences with verb movement.
environment that is appropriate for the word. For instance, the lexical-syntactic information
Thus, lexical-syntactic information about the PAS of the verb determines the verb
includes the word’s grammatical category – whether it is, say, a noun or a verb. This in turn
phrase level. According to some accounts for agrammatism, individuals with agrammatism
determines the type of phrase the word is the head of: a noun will project a noun phrase, and
have deficits beyond the VP level – in the higher, functional nodes of the syntactic tree
a verb, a verb phrase. When the lexical-syntactic representation of a noun is accessed, its
(Friedmann, 1999, 2001, 2005, 2006; Friedmann and Grodzinsky, 1997), and in sentences
grammatical gender becomes available, and the gender in turn determines the inflection of
that involve syntactic movement (Grodzinsky, 1989; Grodzinsky et al., 1999). Are
sentential components that agree with the noun, such as the determiner or the verb. Within
individuals who show impairment to these higher nodes also necessarily impaired in the
linguistic theory, similar notions exist to explain gender agreement with a noun. For example,
ability to represent lexical-syntactic information and use it to build the VP? For this aim we
according to Chomsky (1995), the gender of a noun is retrieved as part of the numeration (the
will assess PAS knowledge of individuals with agrammatism who have impairments in
list of items retrieved from the lexicon before the structure is built), and then either the
sentences that involve Wh-movement, verb movement, tense inflection, and embedding, and
agreement features of the elements that agree with the noun enter the numeration or, when the
see whether they may demonstrate intact PAS knowledge.
noun moves to an agreement phrase, syntactic operations create the agreement of the agreeing
elements. Another possibility Chomsky mentions is that the words that agree with the noun
reach the phonological component uninflected and the inflection is added at the phonological
interface. (See Dotan and Friedmann, 2007, 2010 and Kohn and Melvold, 2000 for similar
suggestions that morphological processes take place at the phonological output buffer.)
The lexical-syntactic information about the gender of the noun determines the
inflection of elements within the NP, but also of elements in the inflectional layer, such as the
agreement inflection of the verb. One question we will ask would be, like in the case of PAS,
whether individuals with agrammatism who have deficits in the higher syntactic layers, are
also necessarily impaired in the ability to represent lexical-syntactic information with respect
A similar process occurs at the interface between argument structure information in
to grammatical gender. We will further ask whether it is possible to distinguish between
the lexicon and structure building. The syntactic component builds a syntactic structure from
impairments of grammatical gender knowledge which lead to incorrect inflection also at the
the numeration. Syntax operates on the selected elements and the lexical-syntactic
inflectional level, and syntactic impairments at the inflectional level. For this aim we will
information they bear, so that the arguments that appear in the lexical entry of the verb as
compare grammatical gender, which is stored as part of the lexical-syntactic knowledge, with
required by the verb determine the syntactic structure of the verb phrase. For example, if the
conceptual gender, which is also encoded in the conceptual system and the semantic lexicon.
verb retrieved does not require a complement (like sneeze), then the syntactic structure of the
A selective deficit at the lexical-syntactic knowledge of grammatical gender is expected to
verb phrase includes only the verb, without a complement. If, however, the verb retrieved
affect inflections at the inflectional layer for inanimate nouns, but not for animate nouns.
requires two complements (like give), the verb phrase will include the verb and two
Individuals with impaired access to lexical-syntactic knowledge may still be able to access
complements.
the natural gender of animate nouns and hence may still be able to use correct inflection at
How does lexical-syntactic information relate to the syntactic tree? In the syntactic
tree, the VP forms the lowest layer of the syntactic tree, the lexical layer (Chomsky, 1986,
1995; Pollock, 1989; Rizzi, 1997). The layers above VP consist of functional nodes: the
the inflectional layer. On the other hand, individuals whose impaired gender inflection results
from a syntactic deficit in the inflectional layer are expected to show similar impairment for
grammatical and natural gender.
inflectional layer, which is responsible for the inflection of verbs for tense and agreement
Therefore, the aims of the current study are to examine whether lexical-syntactic
(this layer includes the tense phrase, TP, and, according to some accounts, an agreement
information (PAS and grammatical gender) can be intact when syntax beyond the verb phrase
phrase, AgrP, which represents agreement between the subject and the verb); and the
level is impaired. We will also test the specific relation between incorrect inflection that
12
Lexical-syntactic information in aphasia
13
Lexical-syntactic information in aphasia
results from lexical-syntactic impairment and impaired inflection as a result of impaired
deficit (agrammatism) or a lexical retrieval deficit. We selected the 17 participants for the
syntactic mechanism; A further research aim, as we detailed above, is to find where lexical-
experiment on the basis of an initial diagnosis of lexical and/or syntactic problems (using the
syntactic information is stored in the lexical retrieval process. This will be tested by assessing
ILAT, Shechther, 1965, and the BAFLA, Friedmann, 1998). Ten participants showed lexical
lexical-syntactic information in individuals with impairments at different stages of lexical
processing impairments, 4 participants had agrammatic aphasia, and 3 participants had a
retrieval. The rationale is that if there are individuals with anomia who are impaired in a
mixed syntactic and phonological impairment. We then administered an extensive battery of
certain lexical retrieval stage but have intact lexical-syntactic information, this would indicate
tests to establish and characterize the participants’ impairments and to identify the functional
that lexical-syntactic information is not stored in that impaired lexical stage. A systematic
locus of each participant’s syntactic and lexical retrieval deficits. These tests are described in
exploration of all stages may then lead to a conclusion as to where lexical-syntactic
Appendix B. In sections 2.1.1. and 2.1.2, and in section 3 which evaluates the lexical-
information is stored. The last research question relates to whether different types of lexical-
syntactic performance of the participants we present results for the individuals who had a
syntactic information, predicate argument structure of verbs and grammatical gender of
selective deficit in syntax or lexical retrieval. We then present separately, in section 4.1., the
nouns, can be selectively impaired. If they can, this would suggest that they are stored
three participants with mixed syntactic and phonological impairment.
separately.
The tests were administered to each participant individually in a quiet room at the
To explore these questions we first diagnosed the functional locus of deficit of each
rehabilitation center, in our Language and Brain Lab at the university, or at their homes.
participant. We assessed whether it is a syntactic impairment or an impairment in lexical
Testing was performed over 5-10 sessions per participant; each session took one to two
retrieval, and if the impairment was in lexical retrieval, we diagnosed which of the lexical
retrieval stages is impaired, using an extensive battery of syntactic and lexical tests and
analyses (detailed in Appendix B). Then, we administered two test batteries that examined
hours, depending on the participant’s ability. All of the sessions were recorded and then
transcribed by two independent judges. The reliability between the judges was very high for
all tests.
the PAS and gender information of each of the participants, and compared the lexicalsyntactic performance of individuals who are impaired in different components of syntax and
2.1.1. Testing for inclusion in the syntactic impairment group
lexical retrieval.
Four participants presented the characteristic agrammatic pattern in speech production: non2. Participants
2.1. Individuals with aphasia
fluent speech, use of simple sentences, ungrammatical utterances, tense inflection errors, and
impaired production of embedded clauses, relative clauses, and Wh-questions.
Seventeen individuals with aphasia, 11 men and 6 women, participated in the study. Sixteen
To make sure that they indeed had agrammatism and could be safely included in this
participants had a lesion in the left hemisphere, and one (AE) had a lesion in the right
study, and to determine the layer of the syntactic tree at which they are impaired, we tested
hemisphere. The participants’ mean age was 51 years (range 23-73 years). Sixteen
these 4 individuals with a line of structured syntactic tasks of sentence comprehension and
participants were native speakers of Hebrew, and one (RT) has spoken Hebrew for 44 years.
production from the BAFLA syntactic battery (Friedmann, 1998). In comprehension, we
Their mean number of years of education was 13 (range 8-19 years). Thirteen participants
included individuals who failed to understand non-canonical semantically reversible object
were right-handed, three were left-handed, and one was ambidextrous. Fifteen participants
relatives and object Wh-questions.2 For this aim, we tested comprehension of subject and
had aphasia following stroke, and two (RA, AL) had a traumatic brain injury. Mean time post
object relative clauses, and subject and object Wh-questions. The production tasks were
onset was 33 months (range 1 month to 13 years). See Appendix A for detailed background
information on the participants.
Because we were interested in the relation between lexical-syntactic information and
syntactic and lexical impairments, we included in the study participants who had a syntactic
2
Indeed, some studies reported individuals with agrammatism who demonstrated other comprehension patterns
(Berndt and Caramazza, 1980; Berndt, et el., 1996; Caplan, 1985; Caplan and Futter, 1986; Schwartz, et al.,
1987). However, because we were mainly interested in identifying individuals who were clearly agrammatic in
order to ask the research questions regardng lexical-syntactic information in individuals with agrammatism, we
only included individuals who we could be sure are agrammatic. We therefore selected for this study individuals
with impaired comprehension of non-canonical reversible sentences and relatively good comprehension of
canonical sentences, in addition to agrammatic speech production.
14
Lexical-syntactic information in aphasia
15
Lexical-syntactic information in aphasia
embedded-sentence repetition, relative clause elicitation, repetition of sentences with verb
Table 1 – Performance of the agrammatic participants in
the syntactic tasks (% correct).
movement, and tense inflection completion (See Appendix B1 for a detailed description of
RA
RT
AE
GR
Relative clause comprehension
subject relative
object relative
83
57c
97
40c
96
55c
100
55c
of the non-canonical structures – object relatives and object questions (at least which-object
Wh-question comprehension
who subject
who object
which subject
which object
97
57c
63c
53c
70c
40c
65c
15
95
70c
90
70c
100
45c
85
50c
questions), on which they performed at chance, and better comprehension of subject relatives
Embedded-sentence repetition
12
20
0
25
30
9
these tests used to assess the syntactic impairment). Only participants who performed poorly
on both comprehension and production in these tests, showing a clearly agrammatic pattern in
both comprehension and production were included in the agrammatic group.
The four participants who were diagnosed with agrammatism showed a clear
agrammatic pattern in comprehension and production. They showed impaired comprehension
and subject questions, which can be comprehended on the basis of the canonical order of
Verb movement repetition
arguments. None of them could produce embedded sentences in the repetition task (or in
Relative clause elicitation
subject relative
object relative
spontaneous speech), or relative clauses in the elicitation and repetition tasks. All three
participants who were tested on production of verb movement to the second sentential
position showed poor repetition of sentences with verb movement, and much better repetition
of sentences without movement (as can also be seen in their good repetition of simple
sentences in the PAS sentence repetition task, see Table 3 below). Three of the participants
displayed impairment in tense inflection as well (RA, who was impaired in tense in earlier
Verb inflection - tense
completion b
a
23
8
0
0
12
0
50
0
88
42
50
50
The repetition tests were not administered to RT.
Percentage correct repetition of the sentences with verb movement.
The sentences in the test were simple sentences without verb movement.
c
Performance at chance level on the comprehension tasks.
a
b
studies [Friedmann, 2001, 2006], improved and performed relatively well on tasks involving
2.1.2. Testing for inclusion in the lexical retrieval impairment group
tense in the current testing period). See Table 1 for a summary of the 4 participants’
The lexical impairment group included 10 individuals who had a marked lexical retrieval
performance on the syntactic tests.
deficit. Their impairment was initially established on the basis of poor performance (under
70% correct) on the SHEMESH naming test (naming 100 pictures of objects, Biran and
Friedmann, 2004). These individuals were later given conceptual, semantic, and phonological
tests in order to determine the locus of impairment within the lexical retrieval process. These
tests included: picture naming, picture association, word association, semantic and
phonological verbal fluency, synonym judgment, spoken/written word-picture matching,
word and nonword repetition and nonword reading. See Appendix B2 for a detailed
description of the tests used to assess their lexical retrieval impairment.
Because we were interested in lexical deficits, rather than general conceptual deficits,
we included only participants without a conceptual deficit. To identify a conceptual deficit,
we administered a picture association test, and analyzed the error types in the SHEMESH
naming test, looking for paraphasias that were semantically and phonologically unrelated to
the target word (e.g., cherry-glasses). We only included in the study individuals with good
performance in the picture association test and absence of unrelated paraphasias in naming.
16
Lexical-syntactic information in aphasia
17
Lexical-syntactic information in aphasia
A lexical-semantic deficit was diagnosed by the existence of semantic paraphasias in
effect to exist if a significant Point Biserial correlation (p < .05) was found between success
naming (errors that are semantically related to the target word; e.g., pineapple-coconut) and
in producing each word or syllable, and the tested measure. The frequency effect was
3
difficulty in various semantic tasks: semantic verbal fluency, synonym judgment, word
calculated for word frequency as judged by 75 Hebrew speakers on a scale of 1 to 7. The
association test, and spoken/written word-picture matching test.
length effect was measured as the number of phonemes in a word, because this was found to
A phonological deficit, at the phonological output lexicon or the phonological output
be a more indicative measure than syllables (Dotan and Friedmann, 2007; Nickels and
buffer, was diagnosed by the existence phonological paraphasias (errors that are
Howard, 2004). The syllable frequency effect (Laganaro, 2005) was evaluated according to
phonologically related to the target word, e.g., trumpet- trumlet) in naming (for phonological
the frequency of each syllable in phonological paraphasias, taken from Schocken (2008).
18
lexicon impairment, typically alongside semantic paraphasias), and difficulty in a
Table 2 – Performance of the participants with lexical processing impairments on the lexical tests
(% correct unless otherwise noted).
phonological verbal fluency task.
Given a phonological deficit, to distinguish between a deficit at the phonological
Phonological buffer
output lexicon and a deficit at the phonological buffer we also tested nonword repetition and
nonword reading. The distinction was made on the basis of the following criteria. A
frequency effect in naming was taken to indicate a deficit at the phonological output lexicon
(Jescheniak and Levelt, 1994). Several factors indicated a phonological buffer deficit: a
length effect (Franklin et al., 2002; Nickels and Howard, 2004) and a syllable frequency
effect (Laganaro, 2005), as well as impaired nonword reading and nonword repetition. A
limited working memory span was also taken to support a phonological buffer deficit (Gvion
and Friedmann, 2008; Shallice et al., 2000; Shallice and Warrington, 1977). A criterion we
used to point to a phonological buffer impairment without a phonological lexicon impairment
was the type of approximation produced. Faithful approximations (those that include only
phonemes of the target word) characterize a phonological impairment with correct input from
the phonological lexicon (Dotan and Friedmann, 2007, 2010). Furthermore, semantic errors
should be scarce in phonological output buffer impairments and more frequent in a
phonological output lexicon impairment.
The results of these tests are presented in Table 2. In the analysis of errors in the
Naming (SHEMESH)
Num. of unrelated errors
Num. of semantic errors
Num. of phonological errors
Frequency effect
Length effect in phonemes
b
Syllable frequency effect
Faithful approximations
Associations - pictures
written words
Word-picture matching
Spoken
Written
Synonym judgment
Semantic fluency a
Phonological fluency a
Words repetition
Nonword repetition
Nonword reading
b
YD
36
0
3
13
+
+
+
+
100
ND
67
0
2
3
-
+
100
100
MK
64
0
3
10
+
+
+
AG
23
0
5
31
+
+
+
100
100
11
5
42
7
BT
12
5
9
47
+
+c
AO
39
4
17
24
+
-
SM
77d
0
16
3
+
100
100
100
80
56
100
41
39
BP
68
0
10
12
+
+c
Semantic
lexicon
SN
0
27
7
2
97
AA
0
5
0
0
91
100
83
70
100
10
4
84
95
e
100
100
100
100
100
8.5
2.5
66
41
20
Phonological lexicon
100
100
100
8
3.5
88
86
100
100
96
97
60
0
50
0
Empty cells indicate that the test was not administered. In the presentation of effects, a plus sign (+) indicates a
significant effect (p < .05); a minus sign (-) indicates no effect.
naming task, semantic errors include semantic paraphasias; Phonological errors include
a
Average number of items in the two categories tested.
phonemic paraphasias and formal paraphasias; The unrelated errors include paraphasias that
b
ND and SM had many hesitation responses and did not produce enough phonological errors to allow for a reliable
are semantically and phonologically unrelated to the target and neologisms; Hesitations,
assessment of syllable frequency effect and length effect on their errors.
“don't know” responses, perseverations, and visual errors were counted as part of the total
number of errors (and are thus reflected in the Table in the naming score). We considered an
3
In this regard, we must note that verbal fluency tasks are problematic to interpret, because many factors can
lead to poor performance. Individuals with a phonological deficit would be expected to perform poorly on both
semantic and phonological fluency tasks, and it is unclear whether individuals with a semantic deficit can
directly access the phonological output lexicon. Thus, although these tasks indicate a naming deficit, they are
not a very good tool for distinguishing among possible sources of this deficit.
c
Both faithful and unfaithful approximations appeared. BT had more faithful than unfaithful approximations.
d
SM's performance on the SHEMESH naming test was higher than 70%, the threshold that we defined as a word
retrieval deficit, but we included him within the group of participants with lexical deficits because he was diagnosed
with a significant deficit in the phonological output lexicon, and because although he named more than 70% correct,
it as still a significant deficit as compared to control participants who name more than 95% correct.
e
Performance at chance level on the synonym judgment task.
0
Lexical-syntactic information in aphasia
19
Lexical-syntactic information in aphasia
The results of the lexical retrieval tests are presented in Table 2, and the classification of the
3.1. Tests examining predicate argument structure - the PASTA battery (PAS Tests for
participants according to the results and the above considerations is explained in detail in
Aphasia)
Appendix 2c. The results indicated that two participants (SN, AA) had a lexical-semantic
3.1.1. Material selection
deficit – although they performed well on the non-verbal conceptual tests, they performed
To select and classify the verbs to be used in the PAS tests, we requested six linguists and
poorly on tests of synonym judgment and semantic fluency. Three participants (AO, SM, BP)
psycholinguists to classify Hebrew verbs according to the syntactic and thematic types of
were diagnosed with a lexical-phonological deficit4 – they produced semantic and
phrases they can take as complements, and the number of their complementation options. We
phonological paraphasias, showed a frequency effect in naming, had difficulties on the
selected only verbs for which all 6 judges assigned the same argument structure. These verbs
phonological fluency task, and performed well in tests of word-picture matching, synonym
were then given to larger groups of native speakers of Hebrew, in four tasks that assessed the
judgment, and nonword repetition. Five participants (YD, ND, MK, AG, BT) were diagnosed
PAS of each verb. For the sentence production task, in which 41 judges participated, a verb
with a phonological buffer deficit – they produced mainly phonological errors, many of them
was presented and the judge was asked to produce a sentence with it. To assess the use of a
faithful approximations and metatheses, and showed a length effect and a syllable frequency
clausal complement compared with other complements, the verbs that allow for an embedded
effect in naming. They performed flawlessly on the semantic tests and poorly in the nonword
complement were given to 57 native speakers in an incomplete sentence consisting of just a
reading and nonword repetition tests.
subject and the verb, and they were asked to complete the sentence. For the judgment task,
each verb was incorporated into sentences with varying numbers and types of complements,
2.2. Control participants
and 30 native speakers judged the grammaticality of the sentences. For the sentence
Healthy individuals with normal language were examined in order to test the tests and to
completion task, each verb was incorporated into a sentence with a subject and a
achieve indication as to the normal performance on the tests. The control group for each test
complement. The sentence was then presented without the verb, and 30 native speakers were
consisted of 20 to 30 participants. Each control group included 5-8 men and 15-22 women.
asked to insert an appropriate verb.
Their mean age was 36 years (range 19-61 years). All the control participants were native
speakers of Hebrew, with no history of neurological deficits.
All sentence productions and completions complied with the original classifications
and the judgments of the linguists and psycholinguists. There was no more than one different
response for any of the verbs. We therefore kept all the original verbs.
3. Assessment of lexical-syntactic abilities
After identifying each participant’s type and locus of deficit, we turned to assess the lexical-
3.1.2. Tasks
syntactic knowledge of each of them. We administered tests to examine their PAS and
(a) Verb completion in a sentence. 35 sentences from which the verb was missing
grammatical gender abilities. No time limit was imposed during testing, and no response-
from the canonical verb position after the subject. Accompanying each sentence were four
contingent feedback was given by the experimenter. The sentences were repeated as many
verbs, and participants were asked to choose the verb that could complete the sentence.5 For
times as the participant requested.
example, The baby ___ in bed. {sleeps, hugs, depends, says} (Here and throughout the article
the word and sentence examples are English equivalents of the Hebrew words and sentences
that were used in the tests). For each sentence, each of the four verbs had a different PAS:
unergative, transitive, PP complement, and sentential complement (finite or nonfinite [CP or
5
4
In diagnosing a deficit at the phonological output lexicon we did not distinguish between a deficit at the
lexicon itself and a possible deficit in accessing the lexicon or at the output from the lexicon. When considering
a deficit at the phonological output buffer we relate only to a deficit at the buffer itself and not at its acess.
In an earlier version of this test, we used free oral completion, without given options. This method turned out
to be very difficult for the participants because of their word retrieval deficits. It led to poor performance even
for participants who performed well on the task when it included selection from given options. Therefore, we
preferred to use the selection-from-given-options method. MK was the only participant who was tested using
only the free version, and his results in Table 3 are from this version.
20
Lexical-syntactic information in aphasia
21
Lexical-syntactic information in aphasia
IP]). All options were related to the sentence semantically, but only one had a PAS that
(d) Sentence repetition. The participants heard sentences and were asked to repeat
matched the arguments in the sentence. The sentences and the four verbs were written on a
them as accurately as they could. The test included 100 sentences, 10 with each of the
page in front of the participants and were also read to them as many times as they requested.
following types of verbs: unergatives, transitives, ditransitives, unaccusatives, reflexives,
We examined whether the PAS of the selected verb (number of arguments and their syntactic
verbs with two complementation options, verbs with 4 or 5 complementation options, verbs
types) fit the arguments given in the sentence.
with a PP complement, alternating transitive-intransitive verbs, and transitive verbs with an
(b) Grammaticality judgment of PAS. This test included 65 sentences, 30
adjunct (as a sentence-length control for the sentences with ditransitive verbs). The sentences
grammatical and 35 ungrammatical, randomly ordered. All the sentences were simple
with the various types of verbs were presented in random order. Most of the sentences were
sentences, without movement. The ungrammaticality of each of the ungrammatical sentences
presented with an NP complement and the rest with a PP complement. Verbs that do not take
resulted from one of three types of PAS violations: complement addition (*Tali fell the vase),
a complement were presented with an adjunct. All the sentences were simple sentences, in the
complement deletion (*Danny wears), and complement substitution (subcategorization
past tense, without Wh-movement or verb movement.
violation) of PP for NP or NP for PP (*Ron broke on the glass, *Ron relied the judge). The
participants heard the sentences, and for each sentence they were asked to judge whether it
was grammatical or not. They were also asked to correct sentences they had judged as
ungrammatical or to explain why they are ungrammatical (Examples of corrections which
were accepted as correct: for the sentence *Rami gave – "what? to whom? Rami gave.. the
keys to his father"; *The boy wore in the coat – "wore the coat"). The participants who
succeeded in the judgment task could all correct the ungrammatical sentences or explain why
they are ungrammatical. The participants with the semantic deficit, who failed on the
judgment task, also could not correct or explain the ungrammaticality. Namely, the
performance on the ungrammaticality correction task was compatible with the participants'
performance on the other PAS tasks, and the preserved PAS information was manifested also
In the sentence production and the sentence repetition tests we examined (for the analysis in
the current study) whether the sentences produced matched the PAS (including
subcategorization) of the verbs, or whether complements were omitted, added, or substituted.
A response was scored as correct or incorrect exclusively according to the PAS provided; we
disregarded hesitations, lexical retrieval failures, and phonological errors. Thus, percentage
correct (in Tables 3 and 5 below) was calculated as the number of sentences that were
produced with correct PAS, i.e., sentences that did not include omission, substitution, or
addition of an argument, out of the total number of sentences the participant produced. (For
example, for the verb "fixed", in the sentence production test, the response: "The man fixed"
was scored as an error, while the response: "the man fixed ah.. the.. he fixed the.. what can he
fix.. fixed the ra… the car" was scored as correct).
in this task (one participant could not provide corrections due to his very severe production
difficulties).
(c) Sentence production to a given verb. The participants heard a verb and were
asked to use it to construct a sentence. The test included verbs with various numbers of
In the repetition test we also disregarded lexical substitutions that did not violate PAS
information. (An example, translated to English: 'The suspect evaded the answer' instead of
'The suspect evaded the question' was scored as repetition with correct PAS).6
arguments, types of complements, and numbers of complementation options. In all,
participants were given 77 verbs, 7 verbs for each of 11 PAS frames: unergatives (no
complement), transitives (one complement), ditransitives (two complements), unaccusatives
(one argument, a theme), reflexives, verbs with two complementation options, verbs with 4 or
3.2. Tests examining grammatical gender - the MINDY (MIN DIKDUKI) battery
The grammatical gender tests were presented only orally, so that participants would not use
orthographic-morphological cues to the word's written suffix.
5 complementation options, verbs with a PP complement, verbs with an IP complement
3.2.1. Grammatical gender of inanimate nouns
(nonfinite clause), verbs with a CP complement (finite clause), and alternating transitive-
(a) Verb completion in a sentence. In this task (from BAFLA, Friedmann, 1998), participants
intransitive verbs (e.g., darken; Hebrew has only a few verbs of this type). The various types
heard 24 test items. Each consisted of two conjoined sentences whose subjects were different
of verbs were presented in random order.
6
Because this test and the repetition test were very long, not all of the participants completed it. However, since
the tests were randomized, each individual participant responded to similar numbers of verbs from each type.
22
Lexical-syntactic information in aphasia
23
Lexical-syntactic information in aphasia
inanimate nouns of either different genders or of the same gender. In the second sentence, the
subjects was the sentences they produced in the PASTA test of sentence production for a
verb was missing. Participants were asked to insert the missing verb using the verb that
given verb, described in the PAS tasks in Section 3.1. We examined, for sentences produced
appeared in the first sentence, inflected for the gender of the new subject (e.g., etmol ha-
with inanimate subjects, whether the verbs agreed with the inanimate subjects in gender.
otobus acar ve-ha-rakevet acra ‘Yesterday the busMASC stoppedMASC and the trainFEM
3.2.2. Grammatical gender of animate nouns: The contribution of conceptual gender
stoppedFEM’; etmol ha-paamon cilcel ve-ha-telefon cilcel 'Yesterday the bellMASC rangMASC
Unlike purely grammatical gender information, which is encoded at the lexical-syntactic
and the phoneMASC rangMASC'). All sentences were presented in the past tense, to reduce the
level, conceptual gender draws on semantic properties of the word. Conceptual gender can be
effect of tense impairment of the individuals with agrammatism. We disregarded tense errors
used to determine an animate noun’s grammatical gender, and this in turn can be used to
in this task and only scored gender inflection as correct or incorrect.
determine the agreement inflection of other sentential elements.
(b) Phrase-level grammaticality judgment. The participants heard 80 noun phrases
To compare participants’ ability to determine grammatical gender for inanimate nouns
composed of an inanimate noun and an adjective (e.g., big house). Forty of the phrases were
with their ability to determine grammatical gender when the noun also has a conceptual
grammatical and 40 were ungrammatical, presented in random order. Violations involved
gender, and to assess whether conceptual gender can be determined even when lexical-
gender mismatch between the adjective and the noun. Half of the nouns in the grammatical
syntactic information is unavailable, we administered tests examining gender of animate
phrases and half of the nouns in the ungrammatical phrases were masculine, and half were
nouns, and more specifically – of human nouns.
feminine. Half of the nouns had a regular phonological gender marking (i.e., feminine nouns
(a) Verb completion in a sentence. In this task (from BAFLA, Friedmann, 1998),
marked with one of the suffixes -a, -et, -it, such as maclema ‘camera’, and unmarked
participants heard 24 test items. Each consisted of two conjoined sentences whose subjects
masculine nouns, such as duvdevan ‘cherry’), and half of the nouns had an irregular ending
were different animate nouns of different genders or different number (singular/plural). In the
(i.e., feminine nouns without a suffix, such as kos ‘glass’, and masculine nouns with a
second sentence, the verb was missing. Participants were asked to insert the missing verb
feminine suffix, such as taxshit ‘jewel’). The participants were asked to judge whether each
using the verb that appeared in the first sentence, inflected for the gender of the new subject
phrase was grammatical or not. Nine of the participants (with syntactic and phonological
(e.g., etmol ha-yeled rakad ve-ha-yalda rakda ‘Yesterday the boyMASC dancedMASC and the
deficits) spontaneously corrected some of the phrases they had judged as ungrammatical.
girlFEM dancedFEM’).
Like in the PAS grammaticality judgment corrections, the success in the ungrammaticality
(b) Phrase-level grammaticality judgment. The participants heard 30 noun phrases,
corrections was compatible with the participants' performance on the other grammatical
15 grammatical and 15 ungrammatical, randomly ordered, composed of an animate noun
gender tasks.
(referring to a profession or occupation) and an adjective. The adjective either matched the
(c) Free completion of inanimate nouns in sentences. 15 sentences including a
gender of the noun (e.g., melcarit xaxama, waitress smartFEM, ‘a smart waitress'), or created
temporal adverb and a verb (unaccusative or unergatives) inflected for gender, without a
an ungrammatical phrase because of a mismatch between its gender and the gender of the
noun, were presented to the participants, and they were asked to complete the sentence with
noun (e.g., melcarit xaxam, waitress smartMAS). Half of the nouns in each condition (7 or 8)
an appropriate inanimate noun. (For example, etmol ____ nikre'a 'Yesterday ____ was
were unambiguously masculine and half were unambiguously feminine. The participants
tornFEM'). We examined whether the noun they chose matched the gender inflection of the
were asked to judge whether the phrase was grammatical or not. Two participants (RT, RA –
verb. If the participants could not find appropriate nouns because of a lexical retrieval deficit,
with syntactic deficit) spontaneously corrected some of the phrases they had judged as
two pictures of nouns, one masculine and the other feminine, were presented to them and
ungrammatical.
they were asked to choose between them. (The pictures were presented for two of the
participants).
(c) Free completion of animate nouns in sentences. 15 sentences from which a
subject noun was missing were presented to the participants. The sentences included a
(d) Verb agreement in sentences produced with inanimate subjects. An additional
temporal adverb and an intransitive verb (unaccusative or unergatives) inflected for gender,
source of information regarding the participants’ ability to access the gender of inanimate
which require an animate subject. The participants were asked to complete the sentence with
24
Lexical-syntactic information in aphasia
an appropriate animate noun. (For example, etmol ____ hictanen 'Yesterday ____ caught a
25
Lexical-syntactic information in aphasia
26
Table 3 – Participants' performance on the predicate argument structure and gender tests (% correct).
coldMASC'). We examined whether the noun the participants chose matched the gender
Syntax
Phonological buffer
Phonological
lexicon
Semantic
lexicon
RA RT AE GR
YD ND MK AG BT
AO SM BP
SN AA
Deficit location
inflection of the verb. If the participants could not find appropriate nouns because of a lexical
Participant
retrieval deficit, two pictures of nouns, one human masculine and the other human feminine,
Verb completion in a
sentence
100
63
92
91
97
100
100
100
100
80
77
100
64
d
presented for two of the participants, the same participants who were assisted with the
Grammaticality judgment
of PAS
95
85
100
91
100
94
92
100
100
91
100
100
45
72
pictures in the inanimate nouns test).
Correction of the
ungrammatical sentences
91
87
89
95
b
88
100
100
92
85
100
100
Sentence production to a
given verb
90
79
93
85
100
93
100
100
88c
94
93
96
95
99
96
100
98
100
100
100
70
70
PAS
were presented to them and they were asked to choose between them. (The pictures were
(d) Verb agreement in sentences produced with animate subjects. An additional
source of information regarding the participants’ ability to access the gender of animate
Sentence repetition
subjects was the sentences they produced in the PASTA test of sentence production for a
98
given verb, described among the PAS tasks in Section 3.1. We examined, for sentences
Verb completion in a
sentence - inanimate
63
100
92
96
100
100
100
100
88
88
96
100
produced with animate subjects, whether the verbs agreed with the animate subjects in
Grammaticality judgment
- inanimate
74
86
98
87
85
94
97
98
94
91
93
99
Correction of the
ungrammatical phrases inanimate
64
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
87
100
100
87
100
100
100
87
100
a
100
100
100
100
100
98
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
95
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Grammaticality judgment 100
- animate
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Correction of the
ungrammatical phrases animate
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
4. Results
Grammatical
gender
gender.
Control group. The healthy individuals performed at ceiling in all the tests. Their percentage
correct in the PAS sentence completion task was 99% (SD 0.38); PAS grammaticality
Verb agreement in
sentences produced with
inanimate subjects
judgment, 97% (SD 3.77); sentence production to a given verb, 99% (SD 0.84); grammatical
gender sentence completion, 100%; grammaticality judgment of grammatical gender, 99%
Verb completion in a
sentence - animate
(SD 0.64); conceptual gender sentence completion, 100%; phrase-level grammaticality
Because the control group scored 100% correct with no variance on four of the tests (and
99% correct on three other tests, with a very small standard deviation), it was impossible to
use t-tests and, consequently, it was impossible to apply dissociation analyses that are based
on Crawford and Howell’s (1998) t-test (Crawford and Garthwaite, 2007; see Willmes, 1990,
regarding the difficulty in using ceiling-level scores of healthy individuals). Therefore, we
based our analyses on the decision that for the individuals with brain damage, a score of 85%
correct and above in each test indicates preserved knowledge of the relevant domain (along
the lines advocated in Willmes, 1990, p. 419).
Aphasia group. The results of the PAS and gender tests for each participant with aphasia are
presented in Table 3.
Conceptual
gender
judgment of conceptual gender, 100%; gender agreement in sentences produced to a given
verb with animate subject, 100%.
Free completion of
inanimate nouns in
sentences
100
Free completion of
animate nouns in
sentences
Verb agreement in
sentences produced with
animate subjects
100
100
100
80
Note. Shaded cells indicate good performance: above 85% correct on the task; Empty cells indicate that the test was not
administered.
a
RA did not make verb agreement errors, but in 35% of the sentences he either omitted the subject so any agreement on the
verb would be acceptable, or produced the verb inflected for the first person, which does not require a gender agreement in
the past and future tenses in Hebrew.
b
YD had a severe production impairment with many phonological paraphasias which prevented him from providing a
correction to the sentences he judged correctly as ungrammatical.
c
Correct performance in 8/9 sentences.
d
The participants with the semantic deficit were unable to understand and perform the sentence production task and most
of the completion tasks, their performance was at floor level, and the tests were not administered fully. Because we could
not be sure that the poor performance in these tasks could be ascribed to impaired lexical-syntactic information rather than
to their failing to understand the task instructions, to be conservative we did not include these tests in the results.
Lexical-syntactic information in aphasia
27
Lexical-syntactic information in aphasia
On the basis of these results, we are now in a position to answer the research questions we
question of whether lexical-syntactic information is stored at the semantic lexicon, together
posed in the Introduction.
with the semantic attributes of words. Because they only demonstrate an association between
two deficits, one cannot reliably conclude a shared functional locus on the basis of these
4.1. Where in the lexical retrieval process is lexical-syntactic information stored?
results (Ellis and Young, 1996; Shallice, 1988).
One of the main questions we explored was where in the process of lexical retrieval is
Table 4 – Performance of the participants with a mixed deficit in
lexical-syntactic information stored. The rationale was that data about individuals who are
the syntactic and in the lexical tests (% correct unless otherwise noted).
impaired at a certain lexical level and who still have intact lexical-syntactic information can
indicate that lexical-syntactic information is not stored at that stage.
Relative clause comprehension
subject relative
object relative
And indeed, two such dissociations were found in the performance of the 8
participants with a selective deficit in the phonological stages of lexical retrieval: a
information, and a dissociation between impaired phonological output lexicon and preserved
lexical-syntactic information.
Syntactic tests
dissociation between impaired phonological output buffer and preserved lexical-syntactic
AL
ZH
HY
100
63c
100
50c
93
53c
Wh-question comprehension
who subject
who object
which subject
which object
82
57c
68
65c
Embedded-sentence repetition
0
MK, AG, BT) performed well on both types of lexical-syntactic information. Namely, they
Verb movement repetition
15
all showed mastery of predicate argument structure and grammatical gender. This
dissociation between impaired phonological buffer and preserved lexical-syntactic knowledge
Relative clause elicitation
subject relative
object relative
6
0
40
10
0
0
indicates that the lexical-syntactic information is not encoded at the buffer level; instead, it is
Verb inflection - tense completion
38
50
58
expected to be encoded at an earlier lexical level. The next question is at which lexical level
Naming (SHEMESH)
Number of semantic errors
Number of phonological errors
Number of unrelated errors
Frequency effect
Length effect in phonemes
Syllable frequency effect
Faithful approximations
44
6
17
10
+
-
19
16
25
0
+
-
54
11
24
0
+
+
-
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
All of the participants with a selective phonological output buffer deficit (YD, ND,
is this information encoded?
SM, BP) also performed well on tasks of lexical-syntactic information: they showed
preserved grammatical gender and PAS information (except for AO's and SM's performance
on the PAS sentence completion test, in which they scored 80% and 77% correct,
respectively, significantly above chance but below the threshold we considered as preserved
knowledge). Thus, for the individuals with a lexical-phonological deficit, a clear dissociation
between impaired phonological lexicon and preserved lexical-syntactic knowledge was
observed. If lexical-syntactic information can be accessible when lexical-phonological
information is not, this indicates that lexical-syntactic information is not encoded at the
phonological lexicon level. Namely, it has to be encoded earlier than the phonological output
lexicon.
Lexical tests
The three participants with a selective deficit at the phonological output lexicon (AO,
Associations - pictures
written words
Word-picture matching - spoken
written
Synonym judgment
98
100
8
3
Semantic fluency b
6
4.5
Phonological fluency b
0
3
Nonword repetition
9
71
Nonword reading
47
43
Empty cells indicate that the test was not administered.
A plus sign (+) indicates a significant effect (p < .05); a minus sign (-) indicates no effect.
b
Average number of items in the two categories tested.
c
Performance at chance level on the comprehension tasks.
As for the two participants who had a lexical-semantic deficit (SN, AA), both showed
Data that do provide a clear answer to the question of whether lexical-syntactic
impaired lexical-syntactic information, failing on tests of both types of lexical-syntactic
information is encoded in the semantic lexicon comes from a different group of participants.
information, PAS and grammatical gender. These participants do not contribute to the
28
Lexical-syntactic information in aphasia
29
Lexical-syntactic information in aphasia
AL, HY, ZH had a mixed deficit. As shown in Table 4, which summarizes their performance
4.2. Can lexical-syntactic information be intact when syntax is impaired?
in the syntactic and lexical tests, the three of them had a syntactic impairment, as well as a
A very clear dissociation was found between impaired sentence-level syntax and preserved
phonological deficit in lexical retrieval. HY had a deficit in the phonological lexicon, and AL
lexical-syntactic information: The 4 participants with a syntactic deficit showed preserved
and ZH had a deficit in the phonological lexicon and in the buffer.
lexical-syntactic knowledge in at least one type of lexical-syntactic information. As Table 3
After establishing their loci of deficit in syntax and lexical retrieval, we administered
PAS and grammatical gender tests. The results of the lexical-syntactic information testing,
presented in Table 5, demonstrate that these patients failed on both the PAS tests and the
grammatical gender tests. Crucially, the lexical tests (Table 4) indicated that their lexical-
indicates, 3 of the 4 participants evinced mastery of PAS, with the notable exception of
patient RT. Three of the 4 participants also exhibited mastery of grammatical gender, with the
exception of RA (see below, section 4.3). Thus, a clear dissociation between sentence-level
deficits and syntactically-relevant lexical information was observed. These results show that
although the ability of these participants to construct syntactic trees above VP was severely
semantic information was preserved.
compromised, they had unimpaired lexical-syntactic information, and could construct the VP
level, including the verb and its arguments, well. They could also access the grammatical
PAS
Table 5 – Performance of the participants with a mixed deficit in the
predicate argument structure and gender tests (% correct).
ZH
HY
Verb completion in a sentence
48
74
63
Grammaticality judgment of PAS
71
75
77
Correction of the ungrammatical sentences
72
48
54
Sentence production to a given verb
75
Sentence repetition
Grammatical
gender
gender of nouns. We can thus conclude that lexical-syntactic information is stored separately
Participant AL
4.3. Can the two types of lexical-syntactic information be selectively impaired?
87
The results in Table 3 also bear on another research question: whether different types of
63
75
75
Grammaticality judgment - inanimate
65
76
68
78
Verb agreement in sentences produced with inanimate subjects
98
Verb completion in a sentence - animate
92
with agrammatism can have intact PAS and grammatical gender knowledge.
75
Verb completion in a sentence - inanimate
Free completion of inanimate nouns in sentences
from the syntactic level of sentence construction. These results thus indicate that individuals
100
lexical-syntactic information, in this case PAS and grammatical gender, are stored together.
A double dissociation was found between PAS and grammatical gender. One of the
participants with agrammatism (RA) showed preserved PAS information and impaired
Conceptual
gender
grammatical gender information. Another participant with agrammatism (RT) showed the
Grammaticality judgment - animate
Verb agreement in sentences produced with animate subjects
83
96
77
98
98
opposite pattern: her grammatical gender information was preserved but she had PAS
impairment, (which might be termed “aPASia”). Importantly, across all three PAS tasks, RT's
PAS errors did not just occur in sentences that included an embedded (CP) complement or
Shaded cells indicate good performance: above 85% correct on the task.
Empty cells indicate that the test was not administered.
sentences that required production of an embedded complement. Thus, embedding, which is
known to be impaired in agrammatism, and was impaired for her as well, was not the source
of her difficulty in the PAS tasks.
The dissociation observed for these three participants, between impaired lexical-
Fig. 2 parses out the performance of the two participants with agrammatism (RA, RT)
syntactic information and intact semantic lexicon, suggests that lexical-syntactic information
who showed dissociations between PAS and grammatical gender. This double dissociation
is not encoded in the semantic lexicon. Together with our earlier conclusion that lexical-
indicates that the different types of lexical-syntactic information can be selectively impaired,
syntactic information is not encoded in the phonological lexicon either, these dissociations
indicating that they are stored separately.
point to the position of the lexical-syntactic information. They suggest that lexical-syntactic
information is stored neither in the semantic lexicon nor in the phonological lexicon, but
rather in a separate syntactic lexicon.
30
Lexical-syntactic information in aphasia
31
Lexical-syntactic information in aphasia
Because conceptual gender is most probably a feature of the semantic lexicon (and the
100%
grammatical gender
conceptual system), conceptual gender was impaired for SN, the participant with a lexical-
PAS
semantic deficit. (Conceptual gender tests were not administered to AA, the other participant
with a lexical-semantic deficit.)
90%
100%
80%
90%
80%
70%
70%
60%
60%
50%
RT
RA
Fig. 2 – Dissociations between two types of lexical-syntactic information
(average % correct).
40%
SN
through semantic knowledge. Thus, it is possible that whereas grammatical gender of
inanimate nouns would be affected by a damage in the syntactic lexicon, the gender of nouns
with natural gender would still be accessible.
First, the results in Table 3 and Fig. 3 show that conceptual gender information was
preserved for all the participants who had intact semantic lexicon. The 4 agrammatic
participants, the 5 participants with a phonological buffer deficit, and the 3 participants with a
lexical-phonological deficit performed well on the conceptual gender tasks. Their good
performance was evinced both in the structured tests of verb completion, noun completion
and grammaticality judgment, and also in the test in which they were asked to produce a
sentence to a given verb. When they produced a sentence with an animate subject, none of
them produced any agreement error with animate nouns.
AO
BT
AG
MK
ND
YD
GR
AE
RT
RA
conceptual gender
Fig. 3 – Grammatical and conceptual gender (average % correct).
Whereas grammatical gender of genderless objects (such as door, house, or kite) is stored
gender of nouns with a natural gender is not only grammatical but can also be accessed
SM
grammatical gender
4.4. Can conceptual gender be preserved when grammatical gender is impaired?
only as part of the lexical-syntactic information, represented in the syntactic lexicon, the
BP
An interesting dissociation was observed for one participant, RA. Whereas RA
showed impaired gender knowledge and impaired gender agreement when the agreement
involved inanimate nouns (i.e., grammatical gender), he showed preserved gender agreement
when the agreement involved animate nouns (i.e., conceptual gender). RA scored only 63%
correct on the grammatical gender sentence completion task, but 100% correct on the
conceptual task, χ2 = 12.63, p < .001. He scored 74% correct on the grammatical gender
judgment task but, again, 100% correct on the conceptual task, χ2 = 9.54, p = .002.7 Similarly,
he was the only participant who failed in the corrections of the phrases he had judged as
ungrammatical in the grammatical gender condition, performing 64% correct, but he
flawlessly corrected the ungrammatical phrases with the conceptual gender (100%). These
results show that whereas RA's syntactic machinery for agreement checking was intact, this
ability could only manifest itself when he could access the gender of the subject – that is,
when the subject was animate. However, when the subject was inanimate, the intact syntactic
mechanism of subject-verb agreement (or noun-adjective agreement) could not lead to correct
The same dissociation, with impaired grammatical gender and intact conceptual
gender was also evinced in the performance of two of the three individuals with the mixed
deficit (see Table 5). AL and HY, who were impaired in the syntactic lexicon but had intact
semantic lexicon, showed impaired grammatical gender but good performance with respect to
conceptual gender.
7
This difference did not stem from a difference in regularity between the tasks. In the completion tasks, most or
all of the nouns in the grammatical and conceptual gender items were regular. In the grammaticality judgment
task, a comparison of only the regular items in the conceptual and grammatical gender tests also yielded
significantly better performance on the conceptual gender test, χ2 = 5.09, p = .02. This is in contrary to Luzzatti
and De Blesser (1996) who found a regularity effect in the performance of one of their agrammatic participants
(DR) in a task of inflecting singular masculine and feminine nouns to plural and vice versa – he produced
regularizantion errors on the irregular nouns while his performance on the regular nouns was preserved.
32
Lexical-syntactic information in aphasia
33
Lexical-syntactic information in aphasia
gender agreement, because RA could not determine the grammatical gender of the subject
we think about the phonological buffer as a short-term memory for phonological units.
and therefore failed in agreement completion in sentences with inanimate subjects.
Therefore, the lexical-syntactic information is stored at one of the lexical levels. The
individuals who had a deficit at the phonological output lexicon also showed preserved
5. Discussion
lexical-syntactic information. This dissociation indicates that the lexical-syntactic
This study explored lexical-syntactic knowledge and its relation to syntax and lexical
information is not stored at the phonological output lexicon either. If it had been stored at this
retrieval by assessing lexical-syntactic information in individuals with syntactic and/or lexical
stage, a deficit at the phonological output lexicon should have entailed a deficit in lexical-
retrieval deficits. We assessed the predicate argument structure and grammatical gender of 17
syntactic information too. Thus, we are left with two options. Either lexical-syntactic
individuals with aphasia: individuals with agrammatism, a syntactic deficit, and individuals
information is stored in the semantic lexicon, or it is stored separately from the semantic
with anomia, a lexical retrieval deficit. The lexical retrieval deficits of the anomic
participants resulted from impairments at various stages of lexical retrieval, a difference that
lexicon, in a separate syntactic lexicon, located in parallel with or before the phonological
output lexicon. The two participants with a deficit at the semantic lexicon could not shed light
we used to explore where in the lexical retrieval process the lexical-syntactic information is
on this question, because they both showed a lexical-syntactic information impairment in
stored.
addition to their lexical-semantic impairment. Such an association does not bear on whether
We focused on several main questions. We tried to find out, via the assessment of
or not the lexical-syntactic information is stored in the semantic lexicon. It might be that the
lexical-syntactic information in individuals with selective impairments at various stages of
semantic lexicon impairment blocked further access to the following separate syntactic
the lexical retrieval process, where lexical-syntactic information is stored. We also tested
whether the two types of lexical-syntactic information that we tested in the current study,
PAS and grammatical gender, can be selectively impaired, in order to learn whether they are
lexicon, or it might be that the information is stored at the semantic lexicon, or it might even
be that these two impairments, the lexical-syntactic and the lexical-semantic impairments, are
unrelated but happened to occur together in these two participants.
stored separately. We were further interested in the relations between grammatical gender
The answer to the question of whether the lexical-syntactic information is located in
and natural gender and their intricate relations with the syntactic machinery of gender
the semantic lexicon or separately comes from a group of three patients demonstrating the
inflection. Finally, we tried to establish whether individuals who show impairments in
other direction of the dissociation: a deficit in lexical-syntactic information with intact
syntactic abilities that are related to high nodes in the syntactic tree can still construct VP
correctly, including the syntactically and thematically correct arguments for the verb. The
dissociations found in the current study shed light on these questions. We will detail the
answers these dissociations give to each of the questions below.
semantic lexicon. This dissociation indicates that the lexical-syntactic information is not
encoded in the semantic lexicon, and the conclusion is that lexical-syntactic information is
stored in a separate syntactic lexicon, distinct from the semantic lexicon.
This conclusion is in line with Miozzo and Caramazza (1997) and Nickels and
Howard (2000), who also claimed, on the basis of TOT studies, that a type of syntactic
information, grammatical gender, is stored separately from the semantic information.
Lexical-syntactic information is stored in a separate syntactic lexicon
According to these researchers, the semantic representation is separately connected to
One of the main aims of this study was to find out, via the assessment of individuals with
syntactic information and to phonological information. The access to each of these types of
impaired lexical retrieval, where is lexical-syntactic information stored. The dissociations
information is independent. Miozzo and Caramazza (1997) base this conclusion on their
between deficits at different stages of the lexical retrieval process suggest a clear answer to
findings of similar rates of correct recognition of gender and of initial phoneme in TOT
this question. All the individuals who had a deficit at the phonological output buffer showed
states. Jescheniak and Levelt (1994) brought further evidence that Miozzo and Caramazza
preserved lexical-syntactic information. This dissociation indicates that the lexical-syntactic
interpreted as indicating parallel access to the syntactic and phonological lexicons. Jescheniak
information is not stored at the phonological output buffer. This should come as no surprise if
and Levelt examined reaction times for gender decisions which followed a naming task.
Before making the gender decision, the participants were required to name the pictures either
34
Lexical-syntactic information in aphasia
35
Lexical-syntactic information in aphasia
by producing a bare noun or by producing a noun phrase (definite article + noun). A
facilitatory effect for the gender decision was found only after a noun phrase. Miozzo and
Caramazza suggest that this finding supports the claim that phonological information might
be accessed independently of grammatical information. Namely, when a bare noun was
produced (i.e., its phonology was accessed), its gender was not accessed, and thus, it did not
affect the reaction times of the gender decision task as did the production of a noun phrase,
which obligates access to gender information. (The suggestion of a parallel syntactic lexicon
differs from the view expressed by Levelt et al. (1999), Roelofs et al. (1998), who postulated
a model in which the lemma links between the word's meaning and phonology, i.e., a serial
model in which the syntactic information precedes the phonological information.)
In fact, after having established that the syntactic information is stored separately
from the semantic information it makes conceptually more sense that the access from the
semantic lexicon to the phonological lexicon will not be mediated by the syntactic lexicon, as
it is hard to see why the access to phonological forms should depend on the existence of
syntactic information.
Fig. 4 – Stages of lexical retrieval and the representation of lexical-syntactic information
at a separate syntactic lexicon.
Support for the idea of parallel access to syntactic and phonological lexicons from the
To conclude, the findings of the current study indicate that lexical-syntactic
semantic lexicon (as shown in Fig. 4) can also be seen in the current study. In the two
information is stored at a separate syntactic lexicon, which is accessed in parallel to the
production tasks, sentence production to a given verb and the sentence repetition task, there
phonological output lexicon (see Fig. 4).
were cases in which a phonologically intact verb was produced with incorrect PAS
Caramazza and Miozzo (1998) argued that "the lemma/lexeme distinction may be
information (i.e., omission, addition, or substitution of arguments). This applied both for
unnecessary" (p. 240. See also Caramazza, 1997; Caramazza and Miozzo, 1997). Our
patient RT and for the three individuals with mixed syntactic and phonological impairments,
findings indicate the existence of a syntactic lexicon, separate from the phonological output
who all had aPASia, and occasionally produced the target verb in a phonologically correct
lexicon, and hence the necessity of the distinction between a lexical-syntactic representation
fashion but within an incorrect PAS environment. (Similar cases were found for grammatical
(lemma) and a lexical-phonological representation (lexeme). (See also Biedermann and
gender. In several of RA's incorrect corrections of phrases that included a noun and an
Nickels, 2008 for evidence from homographic and heterographic homophones production for
agreeing adjective, RA produced the noun correctly, but with incorrect adjective inflection,
separate syntactic and phonological representations). Therefore, our findings support a
i.e., with incorrect grammatical gender, because we know his inflection mechanism is intact.
"lemma" representation, in which syntactic information is stored, as advocated by Levelt et
For example, eshkolit ta'im, grapefruit-FEM tasty-MAS) was It should be noted, however, that in
al. (1999), Roelofs et al. (1998) and others.
these tasks the verb had been given earlier to the participants, and they did not retrieve it by
Another point with respect to grammatical gender information relates to its
themselves, so further studies of individuals with aPASia and intact phonological lexicon, or
preservation in Hebrew-speaking individuals with a lexical deficit. Unlike speakers of other
individuals who sometimes fail to apply PAS and gender constraints to the sentence but still
languages, for whom research reported knowledge of gender even when they could not access
produce the verbs and nouns phonologically correctly, will be required.
lexical-phonological information on the target word, Hebrew-speaking individuals with a
lexical-phonological deficit were found in previous studies to lack gender knowledge in
single noun retrieval tasks both in TOT states (Gollan and Silverberg, 2001) and for
36
Lexical-syntactic information in aphasia
37
Lexical-syntactic information in aphasia
individuals with deficits in various levels of the lexical retrieval process (Friedmann and
Grammatical and conceptual gender are dissociable
Biran, 2003). How can this be reconciled with the current results in which three individuals
Finally, a dissociation between impaired grammatical gender (of inanimate nouns) and
with a lexical-phonological deficit showed good judgment and production of grammatical
gender? The explanation probably lies in the fact that whereas the previous studies tested
preserved conceptual gender (of animate nouns) was found for one of the agrammatic
participants, RA, as well as for two individuals with a mixed deficit. These participants had
access to grammatical gender at the single-noun level, gender information in the current study
poor grammatical gender but good lexical-semantics. A possible explanation for this
was tested within the syntactic context of phrases and sentences. This supports our earlier
dissociation is that when a patient has a deficit in the syntactic lexicon that impairs access to
suggestion that grammatical gender is accessed only when it is needed – that is, in the context
grammatical gender, he cannot determine the gender of inanimate nouns, which only have
of a phrase or a sentence, when the syntactic structure requires syntactic agreement checking
arbitrary, grammatical gender. However, if his semantic lexicon and conceptual system are
(Friedmann and Biran, 2003). (See also Cubelli et al., 2005; La Heij et al., 1998; Levelt et al.,
1999; Schriefers, 1993; Schriefers and Jescheniak, 1999, for arguments regarding a difference
between access to gender in syntactic contexts and in bare nouns.)
unimpaired, the gender of animate nouns may still be accessible for him. He would be able to
rely on conceptual-semantic information to infer the gender of animate nouns. A consequence
of this situation is that inflection that relies solely on the identification of grammatical gender
Some interesting open questions arise from the concept of a separate syntactic
in the syntactic lexicon, such as agreement with inanimate nouns, would be impaired
lexicon. For example: what it means to have aPASia, or, in general, a deficit in lexical-
following a deficit in the syntactic lexicon. However, when considering animate nouns, the
syntactic information – is this a deficit affecting the information itself, a deficit in accessing
inflection status would be different. When the morpho-syntactic processing of agreement is
this information, or a deficit in implementing it into the syntactic representation. Another
question that arises is where does the output of the syntactic lexicon go. In the model we
intact, the inflection of animate nouns is expected to be fine. This is exactly the picture that
emerged from our participants' inflection abilities: RA, for example, made errors on verbal
suggested in Fig. 4, the syntactic lexicon is only connected to the phonological output
inflection when the verb had to agree with an inanimate noun, but inflected the verb correctly
lexicon. However, it may well be that it is connected to a component that is responsible to
for gender when the subject was animate.
sentence structure building. Moreover, in line with linguistic theory that now argues that
several morpho-syntactic operations do not take place in narrow syntax, but rather in the
phonological component (Chomsky, 1995, 2001), the syntactic lexicon may be directly
connected to the phonological output buffer.
One implication of this finding is that grammatical gender is stored separately from
semantic aspects of gender. This may put lexical-syntactic information, or at least
grammatical gender information, at a stage following the semantic lexicon. This explains
why, when the semantic lexicon is impaired further access to the syntactic lexicon is blocked,
but when the syntactic lexicon is impaired, patients can still access the semantic lexicon to
Different types of lexical-syntactic information are stored separately
retrieve semantic information that is relevant for the gender of the item. Not surprisingly, SN,
The results also shed light on the representation of different types of lexical-syntactic
who was impaired at the semantic lexicon, showed impairment in conceptual gender
information. A double dissociation was found between the two types of lexical-syntactic
knowledge as well, and could not use conceptual-semantic information regarding the gender
information studied here. One individual with agrammatism showed intact PAS information
of animate nouns to determine their grammatical gender.
and impaired grammatical gender information, whereas another individual with agrammatism
Another implication of this finding regards the way the syntactic ability of gender
showed the reversed pattern – impaired PAS information and intact grammatical gender
agreement should be assessed in individuals with agrammatism, for example. The results
information. This dissociation shows that different types of lexical-syntactic information can
indicate that when assessing gender agreement inflection, it is necessary to examine animate,
be impaired selectively (at least the two types examined in this study), hence indicating that
rather than inanimate, nouns. An agreement test that includes inanimate nouns may create the
they are stored separately.
incorrect impression of impaired agreement ability when administered to a patient with intact
morpho-syntactic agreement ability and impaired grammatical gender information. Giving
38
Lexical-syntactic information in aphasia
39
Lexical-syntactic information in aphasia
such a patient an agreement test with only animate nouns would allow her to show her intact
This is not to say that PAS is not an important part of sentence construction. On the
agreement ability by using the semantic cues for gender that exist in the animate nouns.
contrary. Shapiro et al. (2003), for example, showed that the initial stage of sentence
Otherwise, individuals who have intact agreement but impaired grammatical gender
processing parses input based on lexical categories and the skeleton of a verb's argument
information can fail in an agreement task, a failure that might lead to a wrong conclusion as
structure, deriving a shallow representation of phrase structure and syntactic categories. This
to their syntactic agreement ability.
finding indicates that PAS information is a central axis in sentence processing. Thus, a deficit
PAS can be intact in agrammatism: Lexical-syntactic information is separate from higher-
in PAS information (aPASia) will indeed affect sentence construction, but the manifestation
level syntax
of this deficit will be different from the deficit in agrammatism. In aPASia we expect errors
of substitution, omission, and addition of arguments (Biran and Friedmann, 2008), which are
A dissociation was found between impaired syntax and preserved lexical-syntactic
information. This dissociation supports the view that lexical-syntactic information is stored
separately from syntactic knowledge of sentence construction, and that there are two separate
abilities – one that constructs the syntactic tree up to is highest nodes and parses syntactic
movement, the other encoding the syntactic environments in which a verb can appear.
Whereas syntax uses lexical-syntactic information for structure building (specifically, for
building the VP), structure building can be impaired when lexical-syntactic information is
intact. This accords with results from imaging studies indicating that whereas the left IFG
(inferior frontal gyrus, Broca’s area, Brodmann area (BA) 44/45) is typically related to the
processing of syntax (in fMRI and lesion studies of individuals with agrammatism, BenShachar et al., 2004; Grodzinsky, 2000), other areas are related to the processing of lexicalsyntactic information. Specifically, the left posterior STG (left superior temporal gyrus,
Wernicke's area) was found to be involved in PAS processing in neuroimaging (Shetreet et
al., 2007, 2010a) and lesion studies (Shapiro et al., 1991, 1993). Other areas, left IFG, BA 9
and BA 46, the precuneus and bilateral anterior MTG (middle temporal gyrus), also showed
activation related to PAS information in neuroimaging studies (Shetreet et al., 2007, 2009a).
not the characteristic errors of the agrammatism, but not, for example, a deficit in verb
movement to the second sentential position.
An important finding of the current study is that agrammatic participants had intact
PAS information. These findings are perfectly consistent with the studies of Shapiro and his
colleagues (Shapiro et al., 1993; Shapiro and Levine, 1990), who found, using response time
measurements in online comprehension tasks, that individuals with agrammatic Broca’s
aphasia show the same effect of PAS complexity as healthy adults, indicating that they have
intact PAS knowledge. They also support previous grammaticality judgment studies
(Linebarger et al., 1983) on agrammatism. Prima facie, Shapiro et al.’s results, Linebarger et
al.'s results, as well as the results of the current study do not seem to be consistent with
studies that examined agrammatic individuals’ production of verbs with different PAS frames
and reported a verb complexity effect: participants made more errors with verbs that have a
more complex PAS (Kim and Thompson, 2000; Thompson et al., 1997a). However, two
considerations – one methodological-clinical, the other logical – suggest that these production
data cannot be taken to indicate a deficit in PAS in agrammatism, and even that they can be
taken to demonstrate spared PAS. On the methodological-clinical side, the production studies
This dissociation, between impaired syntax at the sentence level and preserved
required an oral response, which might be compromised because of the participants' deficit in
lexical-syntactic information, also bears on constraint-based accounts of language processing
embedded-sentence production (sentences with a CP argument) and their word retrieval
that claim that syntactic processing is based only on lexical representations (e.g., MacDonald
deficit. In the current study, we used also tasks that did not require production of full
et al., 1994). MacDonald et al. (1994) claim that the information inherent to lexical items
sentences, or even did not require an oral response at all, to prevent interference from other
(including probabilistic information, argument structure, lexical-semantic constraints, and
deficits, such as impaired embedded-sentence production and word retrieval. Consequently,
even phrase structure fragments) is used predictively to suggest the analysis of sentence
the preserved PAS knowledge of the agrammatic participants emerged. On the logical-
input. Such lexicalist approaches argue that syntactic processing is simply the result of
theoretical side, it can be argued that the studies by Kim and Thompson and Thompson et al.
concatenated lexical processing (see Shapiro et al., 2003 for a review). Had syntax been only
actually indicate preserved PAS knowledge in agrammatism. These authors report that the
a reflection of lexical information, we would not expect dissociations between impaired
complexity of the verb affected agrammatic participants’ ability to produce verbs and
syntactic ability and intact lexical-syntactic information.
sentences. Had these participants been impaired in PAS knowledge, no effect of the verbs’
40
Lexical-syntactic information in aphasia
41
Lexical-syntactic information in aphasia
PAS should have been found. The fact that participants’ responses were influenced by the
indicate that neither a syntactic deficit nor a lexical retrieval deficit automatically implies that
verbs’ PAS suggests that their deficit lay not in PAS knowledge itself but in their ability to
an individual with aphasia has a deficit in lexical-syntactic knowledge. We have shown that
insert the verb into a syntactic construction. In this context, it is important to notice that the
individuals can have a severe syntactic impairment or a (phonological) lexical retrieval
“optional three-place verbs” in Thompson et al.'s study take a CP complement as one of their
impairment and still normally access knowledge about the complements each verb takes and
options, thus causing a difficulty in production not because of the type of verb, but because of
about the grammatical gender of nouns.
the participants’ impaired ability to produce CP constructions (Friedmann, 2001, 2006).
Support for the unimpaired PAS knowledge of the agrammatic participants in Kim and
Thompson's study comes from their finding that all the participants in their study succeeded
in a task requiring them to judge the grammaticality of sentences with missing and redundant
arguments (6 participants scored above 90% correct and one scored 83% correct). Kim and
Thompson explain this preserved performance by noting that only simple canonical sentences
were used in this judgment task, and that “only” subcategorization violations were involved
(rather than sentences with Wh-movement). They indicate that “The grammaticality
judgment task employed… minimally requires the subjects to access the lexical-syntactic
entry of the verb at the lemma level” (p. 15). Indeed, if one is interested in subcategorization
and in the lexical-syntactic ability of agrammatic patients, then their study indicates, like ours
and like Shapiro’s and Linebarger's, that access to lexical-syntactic knowledge can be intact
in agrammatism.
The finding that individuals with agrammatism, who have great difficulty in
producing embedded sentences and sentences with movement and in comprehending
sentences derived by movement, can have unimpaired lexical-syntactic information – is very
important for treatment. It suggests that treatment of syntactic movement, for example, can
rely on the individual’s intact lexical-syntactic information – and specifically, on the ability
to identify the roles of the arguments each verb in a sentence selects. This strategy has indeed
been used in treatment by Shapiro, Thompson, and colleagues with promising results
(Shapiro and Thompson, 2006; Thompson and Shapiro 1995; Thompson et al., 1996, 1997b,
1998; and see also Levy and Friedmann, 2009, for a description of a treatment based on the
intact PAS knowledge of a child with syntactic-SLI [Specific Language Impairment]).
To summarize: Rapp and Goldrick (2006) have emphasized the importance of
investigating the relations between word production and sentence production. This study
takes one step toward this goal, by investigating the relations between the word level and the
sentence level. Knowledge about these relations can assist in planning a suitable therapy for
each individual with aphasia, according to his or her deficit. Specifically, our findings
References
Avila C, Lambon Ralph MA, Parcet MA, Geffner D, and Gonzales-Darder, JM. Implicit word cues
facilitate impaired naming performance: Evidence from a case of anomia. Brain and Language,
79 (2): 185-200, 2001.
Badecker W, Miozzo M, and Zanuttini R. The two-stage model of lexical retrieval: Evidence from a
case of anomia with selective preservation of grammatical gender. Cognition, 57 (2): 193-216,
1995.
Ben-Shachar M, Palti D, and Grodzinsky Y. Neural correlates of syntactic movement: Converging
evidence from two fMRI experiments. NeuroImage, 21 (4): 1320-1336, 2004.
Berndt RS and Caramazza A. A redefinition of the syndrome of Broca’s aphasia: Implications for a
neuropsychological model of language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 1 (3): 225-278, 1980.
Berndt RS, Mitchum CC, and Haendiges AN. Comprehension of reversible sentences in
“agrammatism”: A meta-analysis. Cognition, 58 (3): 289-308, 1996.
Biedermann B and Nickels L. Homographic and heterographic homophones in speech production:
Does orthography matter? Cortex, 44 (6): 683-697, 2008.
Biran M and Friedmann N. SHEMESH: Naming a Hundred Objects. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University,
2004.
Biran M and Friedmann N. From phonological paraphasias to the structure of the phonological output
lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20 (4): 589-616, 2005.
Biran M and Friedmann N. APASia in aphasia: Evidence from production and repetition tasks.
Language and Brain, 7: 97-123, 2008. (in Hebrew).
Bock K and Levelt WJM. Language production: Grammatical encoding. In Gernsbacher MA (Ed),
Handbook of Psycholinguistics, 1994: 945-984.
Butterworth B. Lexical access in speech production. In Marslen-Wilson W (Ed), Lexical
Representation and Process. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1989: 108-135.
Butterworth B. Disorders of phonological encoding. Cognition, 42 (1-3): 261-286, 1992.
Caplan D. Syntactic and semantic structures in agrammatism. In Kean ML (Ed), Agrammatism. New
York: Academic Press, 1985.
Caplan D and Futter C. Assignment of thematic roles to nouns in sentence comprehension by an
agrammatic aphasic patient. Brain and Language, 27 (1): 117-35, 1986.
Caramazza A. How many levels of processing are there in lexical access? Cognitive
Neuropsychology, 14 (1): 177-208, 1997.
Caramazza A and Hillis AE. Where do semantic errors come from? Cortex, 26 (1): 95-122, 1990.
Caramazza A and Hillis AE. Lexical organization of nouns and verbs in the brain. Nature, 349 (6312):
788-790, 1991.
Caramazza A and Miozzo M. The relation between syntactic and phonological knowledge in lexical
access: Evidence from the 'tip-of-the-tongue' phenomenon. Cognition, 64 (3): 309-343, 1997.
Caramazza A and Miozzo M. More is not always better: A response to Roelofs, Meyer, and Levelt.
Cognition, 69 (2): 231-241, 1998.
Chomsky N. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1965.
Chomsky N. Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use. New York: Praeger, 1986.
Chomsky N. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995.
Chomsky N. Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz M, (Ed), Ken Hale: A life in language. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press, 2001: 1-52.
42
Lexical-syntactic information in aphasia
Costa A, Sebastian-Galles N, Miozzo M, and Caramazza A. The gender congruity effect: Evidence
from Spanish and Catalan. Language and Cognitive Processes, 14 (4): 381-391, 1999.
Crawford JR and Garthwaite PH. Comparison of a single case to a control or normative sample in
neuropsychology: Development of a Bayesian approach. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 24 (4): 343372, 2007.
Crawford JR and Howell DC. Comparing an individual’s test score against norms derived from small
samples. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 12 (4): 482-486, 1998.
Cubelli R, Lotto L, Paolieri D, Girelli M, and Job R. Grammatical gender is selected in bare noun
production: Evidence from the picture-word interference paradigm. Journal of Memory and
Language, 53 (1): 42-59, 2005.
Dell, GS. A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review, 93
(3): 283-321, 1986.
Dell, GS. The retrieval of phonological forms in production: Tests of predictions from a connectionist
model. Journal of Memory and Language, 27 (2): 124-142, 1988.
Deutsch A, Bentin S, and Katz L. Semantic influence on processing gender agreement: Evidence from
Hebrew. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28 (5): 515-536, 1999.
Dotan D and Friedmann N. From seven dwarfs to four wolves: Differences in the processing of
number words and other words. Language and Brain, 6: 3-17, 2007. (in Hebrew).
Dotan D and Friedmann N. Words and numbers in the phonological output buffer. Presented at the
Academy of Aphasia meeting, Athens, Greece, 2010, October.
Edwards S. Grammar and fluent aphasia. In Fava, E (Ed), Clinical Linguistics: Theory and
Applications in Speech Pathology and Therapy. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2002: 249-266.
Ellis AW and Young AW. Human Cognitive Neuropsychology. Hove: Erlbaum, 1996.
Fattal I, Friedmann N, and Fattal-Valevski A. The crucial role of thiamine in the development of
syntax and lexical retrieval: A study of infantile thiamine deficiency. Brain, 134 (6): 1720-1739,
2011.
Franklin S, Buerk F, and Howard D. Generalised improvement in speech production for a subject with
reproduction conduction aphasia. Aphasiology, 16 (10/11): 1087-1114, 2002.
Friederici AD. The time course of syntactic activation during language processing: A model based on
neuropsychological and neurophysiological data. Brain and Language, 50 (3): 259-281, 1995.
Friedmann N. BAFLA – Friedmann’s Battery for Agrammatism. Tel Aviv University, 1998.
Friedmann N. ‘That’ and ‘what’ in agrammatic production. Brain and Language, 69 (3): 365-367,
1999.
Friedmann N. Agrammatism and the psychological reality of the syntactic tree. Journal of
Psycholinguistic Research, 30 (1): 71-90, 2001.
Friedmann N. BLIP: Battery for Assessment of Phonological Abilities. Tel Aviv University, 2003.
Friedmann N. Degrees of severity and recovery in agrammatism: Climbing up the syntactic tree.
Aphasiology, 19 (10): 1037-1051, 2005.
Friedmann N. Speech production in Broca's agrammatic aphasia: Syntactic tree pruning. In
Grodzinsky Y and Amunts K (Eds), Broca’s region. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006:
63-82.
Friedmann N and Biran M. When is gender accessed? A study of paraphasias in Hebrew anomia.
Cortex, 39 (3): 441-463, 2003.
Friedmann N and Grodzinsky Y. Tense and agreement in agrammatic production: Pruning the
syntactic tree. Brain and Language, 56 (3): 397-425, 1997.
Friedmann N and Gvion A. FriGvi: Friedmann Gvion Battery for Assessment of Phonological
Working Memory. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 2002.
Friedmann N and Gvion A. TILTAN: Battery for the Diagnosis of Dyslexias. Tel Aviv : Tel Aviv
University, 2003.
Friedmann N and Gvion A. As far as individuals with conduction aphasia understood these sentences
were ungrammatical: Garden path in conduction aphasia. Aphasiology, 21 (6-8): 570-586, 2007.
Friedmann N and Novogrodsky R. Which questions are most difficult to understand? The
comprehension of Wh questions in three subtypes of SLI. Lingua, 121 (3): 367-382, 2011.
Friedmann N and Shapiro LP. Agrammatic comprehension of simple active sentences with moved
43
Lexical-syntactic information in aphasia
constituents: Hebrew OSV and OVS structures. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing
Research, 46 (2): 288-297, 2003.
Friedmann N and Szterman R. Syntactic movement in orally-trained children with hearing
impairment. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 11 (1): 56-75, 2006.
Friedmann N and Szterman R. The comprehension and production of wh questions in children with
hearing impairment. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 16 (2): 212-235, 2011.
Garrett M. Syntactic processes in sentence production. In Wales RJ and Walker E (Eds), New
Approaches to Language Mechanisms. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1976: 231-256.
Garrett M. Disorders of lexical selection. Cognition, 42 (1-3): 143-180, 1992.
Gil M and Edelstein C. Hebrew Version of the PALPA. Ra’anana, Israel: Loewenstein Hospital
Rehabilitation Center, 2001.
Gollan TH and Silverberg NB. Tip-of-the-tongue states in Hebrew-English bilinguals. Bilingualism:
Language and Cognition, 4 (1): 63-83, 2001.
Grimshaw J. Complement selection and the lexicon. Linguistic Inquiry, 10 (2): 279-326, 1979.
Grimshaw J. Words and Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2006.
Grodzinsky Y. Agrammatic comprehension of relative clauses. Brain and Language, 37 (3): 480-499,
1989.
Grodzinsky Y. The neurology of syntax: Language use without Broca's area. Behavioral and Brain
Sciences, 23 (1): 1-71, 2000.
Grodzinsky Y, Piñango M, Zurif E, and Drai D. The critical role of group studies in neuropsychology:
Comprehension regularities in Broca's aphasia. Brain and Language, 67 (2): 134-147, 1999.
Gvion A and Friedmann N. Is phonological working memory involved in sentence comprehension?
The difference between phonological and semantic reactivation. In Falk Y (Ed), Proceedings of
the 19th IATL Conference. Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 2008: 1-54.
Haegeman L. Introduction to Government and Binding Theory. (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell, 1994.
Henaff Gonon MA, Bruckert R, and Michel F. Lexicalization in an anomic patient.
Neuropsychologia, 27 (4): 391-407, 1989.
Howard D and Gatehouse, C. Distinguishing semantic and lexical word retrieval deficits in people
with aphasia. Aphasiology, 20 (9-11): 921-950, 2006.
Indefrey P and Levelt WJM. The spatial and temporal signatures of word production components.
Cognition, 92 (1-2): 101-144, 2004.
Jescheniak JD and Levelt WJM. Word frequency effects in speech production: Retrieval of syntactic
information and phonological form. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
Cognition, 20 (4): 824-843, 1994.
Kay J, Lesser R, and Coltheart M. Psycholinguistic Assessments of Language Processing in Aphasia
(PALPA). Hove: Erlbaum, 1992.
Kempen G and Hoenkamp E. An incremental procedural grammar for sentence formulation.
Cognitive Science, 11 (2): 201-258, 1987.
Kempen G and Huijbers P. The lexicalization process in sentence production and naming: Indirect
election of words. Cognition, 14 (2): 185-209, 1983.
Kim M and Thompson CK. Patterns of comprehension and production of nouns and verbs in
agrammatism: Implications for lexical organization. Brain and Language, 74 (1): 1-25, 2000.
Kohn SE and Melvold J. Effects of morphological complexity on phonological output deficits in
fluent and nonfluent aphasia. Brain and Language, 73 (3): 323-346, 2000.
Kulke F and Blanken G. Phonological and syntactic influences on semantic misnaming in aphasia.
Aphasiology, 15 (1): 3-15, 2001.
La Heij W, Mak P, Sander J, and Willeboordse E. The gender-congruency effect in picture-word
tasks. Psychological Research, 61 (3): 209-219, 1998.
Laganaro M. Syllable frequency effect in speech production: Evidence from aphasia. Journal of
Neurolinguistics, 18 (3): 221-235, 2005.
Levelt WJM. Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1989.
Levelt WJM. Accessing words in speech production: Stages, processes, and representations.
Cognition, 42 (1-3): 1-22, 1992.
Levelt WJM, Praamstra P, Meyer AS, Helenius P, and Salmelin R. An MEG study of picture naming.
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 10 (5): 553-567, 1998.
44
Lexical-syntactic information in aphasia
Levelt WJM, Roelofs A, and Meyer AS. A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral
and Brain Sciences, 22 (1): 1-75, 1999.
Levy H and Friedmann N. Treatment of syntactic movement in syntactic SLI: A case study. First
Language, 29 (1): 15-50, 2009.
Linebarger MC, Schwartz M, and Saffran E. Sensitivity to grammatical structure in so-called
agrammatic aphasics. Cognition, 13 (3): 361-93, 1983.
Luzzatti C and De Bleser R. Morphological processing in Italian agrammatic speakers: Eight
experiments in lexical morphology. Brain and Language, 54 (1): 26-74, 1996.
MacDonald MC, Pearlmutter NJ, and Seidenberg MS. Lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity
resolution. Psychological Review, 101 (4): 676-703, 1994.
Miozzo M and Caramazza A. Retrieval of lexical-syntactic features in tip-of-the-tongue states.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Language, Memory, and Cognition, 23 (6): 1410-1423,
1997.
Nickels L. Spoken Word Production and Its Breakdown in Aphasia. Hove: Psychology Press, 1997.
Nickels L and Howard D. When the words won’t come: Relating impairments and models of spoken
word production. In Wheeldon L (Ed), Aspects of language production. Hove, UK: Psychology
Press, 2000.
Nickels L and Howard D. Dissociating effects of number of phonemes, number of syllables, and
syllabic complexity on word production in aphasia: It's the number of phonemes that count.
Cognitive Neuropsychology, 21 (1): 57-78, 2004.
Novogrodsky R and Friedmann N. The production of relative clauses in SLI: A window to the nature
of the impairment. Advances in Speech-Language Pathology, 8 (4): 364-375, 2006.
Patterson K and Shewell C. Speak and spell: Dissociation and word-class effects. In Coltheart M, Job
R, and Sartori G (Eds), The Cognitive Neuropsychology of Language. Hove: Erlbaum, 1987: 273294.
Pesetsky D. Zero Syntax. Vol. 2: Infinitives. Material intended for Zero Syntax but not included in the
final publication. http://web.mit.edu/linguistics/www/pesetsky/infins.pdf, 1991.
Pollock JY. Verb movement, Universal Grammar and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry, 20 (3):
365-424, 1989.
Rapp B and Goldrick M. Speaking words: Contributions of cognitive neuropsychological research.
Cognitive Neuropsychology, 23 (1): 39-73, 2006.
Rizzi L. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Haegeman L (Ed), Elements of Grammar.
Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1997: 281-337.
Roelofs A. Spreading-activation theory of lemma retrieval in speaking. Cognition, 42 (1-3): 107-142,
1992.
Roelofs A, Meyer AS, and Levelt WJ. A case for the lemma/lexeme distinction in models of
speaking: Comment on Caramazza and Miozzo (1997). Cognition, 69 (2): 219-230, 1998.
Schocken B. Characterization and evaluation of speech-reading support systems for hard-of hearing
students in the class. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Tel Aviv University, 2008.
Schriefers H. Syntactic processes in the production of noun phrases. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Language, Memory, and Cognition, 19 (4): 841-850, 1993.
Schriefers H and Jescheniak JD. Representation and processing of grammatical gender in language
production: A review. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28 (6): 575-600, 1999.
Schwartz MF, Linebarger MC, Saffran EM, and Pate DC. Syntactic transparency and sentence
interpretation in aphasia. Language and Cognitive Processes, 2 (2): 85-113, 1987.
Shallice, T. From Neuropsychology to Mental Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1988.
Shallice T, Rumiati IR, and Zadini A. The selective impairment of the phonological output buffer.
Cognitive Neuropsychology, 17 (6): 517-546, 2000.
Shallice T and Warrington EK. Auditory-verbal short-term memory impairment and Conduction
aphasia. Brain and Language, 4 (4): 479-491, 1977.
Shapiro LP. Tutorial: An introduction to syntax. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing
Research, 40 (2): 254-272, 1997.
Shapiro LP. An introduction to syntax. In Bastiaanse R and Grodzinsky Y (Eds), Grammatical
Disorders in Aphasia: A Neurolinguistic Perspective. London: Whurr, 2000.
45
Lexical-syntactic information in aphasia
Shapiro LP, Brookins B, Gordon B, and Nagel N. Verb effects during sentence processing. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17 (5): 983-996, 1991.
Shapiro LP, Gordon B, Hack N, and Killackey J. Verb-argument structure processing in Broca's and
Wernicke's aphasia. Brain and Language, 45 (3): 423-447, 1993.
Shapiro LP, Hestvik A, Lesan L, and Garcia AR. Charting the time-course of VP-ellipsis sentence
comprehension: Evidence for an initial and independent structural analysis. Journal of Memory
and Language, 49 (1): 1-19, 2003.
Shapiro LP and Levine BA. Verb processing during sentence comprehension in aphasia. Brain and
Language, 38 (1): 21-47, 1990.
Shapiro LP and Thompson CK. Treating language deficits in Broca's aphasia. In Grodzinsky Y and
Amunts K (Eds), Broca's Region. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006: 119-134.
Shapiro LP, Zurif E, and Grimshaw J. Sentence processing and the mental representation of verbs.
Cognition, 27 (3): 219-246, 1987.
Shapiro LP, Zurif E, and Grimshaw J. Verb processing during sentence comprehension: Contextual
impenetrability. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18 (2): 223-243, 1989.
Shechther Y. ILAT - Israeli Loewenstein Aphasia Test. Ra’anana, Israel: Loewenstein Hospital
Rehabilitation Center, 1965.
Shetreet E, Palti D, Friedmann N, and Hadar U. Cortical representation of verb processing in sentence
comprehension: Number of complements, subcategorization, and thematic frames. Cerebral
Cortex, 17 (8): 1958-1969, 2007.
Shetreet E, Friedmann N, and Hadar U. An fMRI study of syntactic layers: Sentential and lexical
aspects of embedding. NeuroImage, 48 (4): 707-716, 2009a.
Shetreet, E., Friedmann, N., and Hadar, U. The neural correlates of linguistic distinctions:
Unaccusative and unergative verbs. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22 (10): 2306-2315,
2009b.
Shetreet, E., Friedmann, N., and Hadar, U. Cortical representation of verbs with optional
complements: The theoretical contribution of fMRI. Human Brain Mapping, 31 (5): 770-785,
2010a.
Shetreet, E., Friedmann, N., and Hadar, U. Neural correlates of linguistic distinctions: Different
syntactic movements yield different activations. Presented at the Neurobiology of Language
Conference, San Diego, California, 2010b, November.
Thompson CK, Ballard KJ, and Shapiro LP. The role of syntactic complexity in training Whmovement structures in agrammatic aphasia: Optimal order for promoting generalization. Journal
of the International Neuropsychological Society, 4 (6): 661-674, 1998.
Thompson CK, Lange KL, Schneider SL, and Shapiro LP. Agrammatic and non-brain-damaged
subjects’ verb and verb argument structure production. Aphasiology, 11 (4/5): 473-490, 1997a.
Thompson CK and Shapiro LP. Training sentence production in agrammatism: Implication for normal
and disordered language. Brain and Language, 50 (2): 201-224, 1995.
Thompson CK, Shapiro LP, Ballard KJ, Jacobs BJ, Schneider SS, and Tait ME. Training and
generalized production of Wh- and NP-movement structures in agrammatic aphasia. Journal of
Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 40 (2): 228-244, 1997b.
Thompson CK, Shapiro LP, Jacobs BJ, and Schneider SL. Training Wh-question production in
agrammatic aphasia: Analysis of argument and adjunct movement. Brain and Language, 52 (1):
175-228, 1996.
van Turennout M, Hagoort P, and Brown CM. Brain activity during speaking: From syntax to
phonology in 40 milliseconds. Science, 280 (5363): 572-574, 1998.
Vigliocco G, Antonini T, and Garrett MF. Grammatical gender is on the tip of Italian tongues.
Psychological Report, 8 (4): 314-317, 1997.
Vigliocco G and Franck J. When sex and syntax go hand in hand: Gender agreement in language
production. Journal of Memory and Language, 40 (4): 455-478, 1999.
Vigliocco G and Zilli T. Syntactic accuracy in sentence production: The case of gender disagreement
in Italian language-impaired and unimpaired speakers. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28
(6): 623-648, 1999.
46
Lexical-syntactic information in aphasia
Wartenburger I, Heekeren HR, Burchert F, De Bleser R and Villringer A. Grammaticality judgments
on sentences with and without movement of phrasal constituents – an event-related fMRI study.
Journal of Neurolinguistics, 16 (4): 301–314, 2003.
Willmes K. Statistical methods for a single-case study approach to aphasia therapy research.
Aphasiology, 4 (4): 415-436, 1990.
47
Lexical-syntactic information in aphasia
48
Appendix A. Background information on the participants
Participant Diagnosis
Sex Hand
Age
Native
language
Education Etiology
(years)
Time post
onset
RA
Agrammatism
M
Right
32
Hebrew
12
TBI
13 years
RT
Agrammatism
F
Right
58
8
CVA
7 years
AE
Agrammatism
M
Right
63
French
(Hebrew
44 years)
Hebrew
12
CVA
GR
Agrammatism
F
Right
37
Hebrew
12
YD
Phonological buffer
M
Right
46
Hebrew
ND
Phonological buffer
M
Left
60
MK
Phonological buffer
M
Left
38
AG
Phonological buffer
M
Right
BT
Phonological buffer
F
Right
AO
Phonological lexicon
M
SM
BP
Phonological lexicon
Phonological lexicon
SN
AA
Plegia /
paresis
Lesion site
Right
hemiplegia
Right
hemiplegia
Left temporo-parietal hematoma due to a left frontal contusion.
4 years
--
Right temporo-parietal ischemic infarct. Subcortical hypodense area.
Several left frontal and temporal lacunar hypodense areas.
CVA
8 years
Left ischemic infarct involving temporo-parietal areas.
11
CVA
1.5 months
Right
hemiparesis
Right
hemiparesis
Hebrew
16
CVA
22 months
--
Ischemic infarct in the territory of left MCA.
Hebrew
12
CVA
9 months
Right
hemiparesis
Left parietal hemorrhage and left subarachnoid hemorrhage. Left
temporal craniotomy for evacuation of hemorrhage.
63
Hebrew
17
CVA
3 months
--
Left ischemic infarct.
53
Hebrew
12
CVA
9 months
Right
hemiplegia
Ischemic infarct in the territory of left ACA and MCA. Large
hypodense area in the left frontal lobe.
Mixed
L>R
73
Hebrew
19
CVA
1 month
--
Ischemic infarct in the territory of left MCA involving temporoparietal areas.
M
Right
49
Hebrew
12
CVA
3 months
--
Left periventricular white matter lesion. Subcortical hypodense area.
F
Right
23
Hebrew
12
CVA
3 months
Left ischemic infarct involving temporo-parietal areas.
Semantic lexicon
M
Right
62
Hebrew
8
CVA
2.5 months
Right
hemiparesis
--
Semantic lexicon
F
Right
70
Hebrew
15
CVA
5 months
Right
hemiplegia
Left subarachnoid hemorrhage with large parieto-temporal hematoma.
Bleeding of left MCA aneurysm. Craniotomy for evacuation of
hemorrhage. Clipping of bleeding aneurysm. Vasospasm. Extensive
left hypodense area.
AL
Phonological lexicon
+Phonological buffer
+Agrammatism
M
Right
56
Hebrew
12
TBI
7 months
--
Left ischemic infarct involving frontal and parietal areas. Subarachnoid
and subdural hemorrhage. Left fronto-temporal craniotomy for
evacuation of hemorrhage.
ZH
Phonological lexicon
+Phonological buffer
+Agrammatism
Phonological lexicon
+Agrammatism
M
Left
55
Hebrew
16
CVA
13 months
--
Left ischemic infarct involving temporo-parietal areas.
F
Right
37
Hebrew
15
CVA
8 years
Right
hemiplegia
Left ischemic infarct involving fronto-temporal areas. Hypodense area
in the basal ganglia.
HY
Left ischemic infarct.
Ischemic infarct in the territory of left MCA. Low density in left
parietal area.
Left ischemic infarct involving temporo-parietal areas.
Lexical-syntactic information in aphasia
49
Lexical-syntactic information in aphasia
Appendix B – A detailed assessment of the syntactic and lexical abilities of the participants
precedes the theme. The relatively good comprehension of the canonical sentences also
B1. Tests for inclusion in the syntactic impairment group
indicates the participants' comprehension of the task, the words in the sentences, and the
Comprehension of reversible subject and object relative clauses was assessed by a
sentence-picture matching test (BAFLA ZT). The test includes 90 semantically reversible
sentences: 30 sentences with subject relative clauses (Show me the woman that is drawing the
girl), 30 sentences with object relative clauses (Show me the girl that the woman is drawing),
and 30 filler simple subject-verb-object (SVO) sentences (e.g., The woman is drawing the
girl). All sentences include characters of the same gender and number. The participants heard
pictures.
The embedded-sentence repetition test includes 20 sentences: 10 with sentential
complements (The-doctor knew that-the-child sneezed, which is a 4-word sentence in
Hebrew) and 10 with semantically reversible object relatives (I-saw the-doctor that-the-child
knew, also 4 words). The participants were asked to repeat each sentence immediately after
hearing it. (See Friedmann, 1999, 2001 for a description of this test.)
a sentence as many times as they needed. They were shown two pictures – one where the
roles matched the sentence and one where the roles were reversed – and were asked to point
to the matching picture (see Friedmann and Shapiro, 2003 and Fattal, Friedmann and Fattal,
2011 for details on this test).
The verb movement repetition test includes 40 sentences: 20 with verb movement to
second position in the sentence, following a temporal adverb (AdvVSO), and 20 without verb
movement (AdvSVO). The participants were asked to repeat the sentences. (See Friedmann,
2006 for this test and its rationale.)
Comprehension of Wh-questions was also assessed using a picture selection task
(BAFLA ST). This test includes 120 questions: 30 which-subject questions (Which girl is
kissing the grandma?), 30 which-object questions (Which grandma is the girl kissing?), 30
who-subject questions (Who is kissing the grandma?), and 30 who-object questions (Who is
the girl kissing?). The experimenter asked a question while the participant was looking at a
picture. The participant was then requested to point at the figure that answered the question,
selecting one of three figures. Each picture included three figures: two of the same type,
which differed in at least one feature (a blue and a purple elephant; a blond and a red-head
girl) and a third figure of a different kind. In the picture, the first figure was performing an
action on the second, and the second figure was performing the same action on the third
figure, which was of the same type of the first one. (A dark dog biting a cat, who is biting a
light-colored dog. see Friedmann and Novogrodsky, 2011, and Friedmann and Szterman,
2011 for details on this test).
Relative clause production was examined with a relative clause elicitation task
(BAFLA ZIBUV). The task includes 20 target sentences (10 subject relatives and 10 object
relatives), elicited by 10 pairs of drawings. The experimenter described the two pictures in
simple sentences, and the participants were then asked to depict each figure using a single
sentence, starting, for example, with “This is the girl…”. Some of the participants were also
tested using another relative clause elicitation task (BAFLA ADIF), which includes six target
subject relatives and six target object relatives. In this test, they were told about two people
and were asked which one they would rather be, starting with “I would rather be the
woman…”. (See Friedmann 2001; Friedmann and Szterman, 2006; and Novogrodsky and
Friedmann, 2006 for details on these two tests.)
The verb inflection completion test (BAFLA VE) includes 24 sentences. Each
sentence included two parts. The first part included a verb in infinitival form, and in the
second part a verb was missing. The participants were asked to insert the same verb in the
For both the relative clause and the Wh-question comprehension tasks, we were
empty space, in the correct tense and agreement inflection (e.g., Grandma wanted to draw, so
looking for individuals who show a clear indication of a deficit in non-canonical structures
she took a charcoal and_____ [drew-past-3rd-sg-fem]. (See Friedmann and Grodzinsky, 1997
(or, under syntax-based theories, a deficit in movement derived sentences in which the object
for details on this test.)
crosses the subject). Such a deficit manifests in these tests in impaired comprehension of the
Because relative clauses and embedded sentences without movement involve the
non-canonical structures – object relatives and object questions (at least which-object
highest node in the syntactic tree, CP, assessing their production indicates whether a
questions) – and better comprehension of subject relatives and subject questions, which can
participant can access CP or not. When the verb moves to second position in the sentence
be comprehended on the basis of the canonical order of arguments, in which the agent
(etmol axla ha-yalda xumus, lit.- yesterday ate the-girl hummus), it moves to CP; hence,
50
Lexical-syntactic information in aphasia
51
Lexical-syntactic information in aphasia
sentences involving this type of movement also serve as an indication for the availability of
whether the two words were synonyms. In the results we report the scores in the judgment of
the CP node. Correct tense inflection relates to another functional node, TP. Failure to inflect
the unrelated non-synonym pairs.
the verb correctly for tense can thus indicate inaccessibility of TP.
The word association test includes 35 items. Each target word is presented in writing
with two other written words, both words are semantically related to each other but only one
B2. Tests for inclusion in the lexical impairment group
is closely related to the target (e.g., pot – {soup, cake}; cold – {winter, summer}). Twenty five
The SHEMESH naming test includes 100 pictures of objects of various semantic
of the words depict imageable nouns that also appear in the picture association test, and 10
categories. The object names are one to four syllables long, with ultimate and penultimate
items are abstract nouns and adjectives. The participants were asked to point to the word
stress and with various first phonemes; they include both masculine and feminine nouns, with
related to the target word.
regular and irregular gender morphology. The frequency of the nouns ranges from 2.39 to
In the spoken/written word-picture matching tests (PALPA 47/48), a word is
6.84 on a scale of 1 to 7 (M = 4.90, SD = 1.09). The performance of adults without a
presented orally or in written form along with five pictures, and the participant is asked to
language deficit in this test is 97% correct naming.
point to the picture that matches the word. The four non-matching distracter pictures in each
set are: semantically related to the target, semantically distant from the target, visually similar
We included in the study only participants whose conceptual level was intact. To rule
out a conceptual deficit, we analyzed the error types in the SHEMESH naming test (looking
for paraphasias that were semantically and phonologically unrelated to the target word) and
administered a picture association test. The picture association test includes 35 items. The
to the target, and unrelated to the target. The spoken and written tests include the same 40
target words and the same distracters.
A phonological deficit, at the phonological output lexicon or the phonological output
buffer, was diagnosed by phonological paraphasias in naming (errors that are phonologically
target picture is presented with two additional pictures. The items shown in the additional
related to the target word) and difficulty in a phonological verbal fluency task (naming
pictures are semantically related to each other, but only one relates to the target item, for
words starting with m and words starting with d, each in 1 minute). To further distinguish
example, a bottle of wine, presented with grapes and apples; an egg, presented with a hen and
between lexical and buffer deficits, we also tested word and nonword repetition (25 words
a dog. Participants had to point to the picture that was semantically more closely related to
and 30 nonwords, respectively, from the BLIP battery for the assessment of phonological
the target. Intact performance in the picture association test (no more than one error) and
absence of unrelated paraphasias in naming were taken to rule out a conceptual deficit.
abilities, Friedmann, 2003), and nonword reading (30 nonwords, from the TILTAN battery
for the diagnosis of dyslexias, Friedmann and Gvion, 2003).
A lexical-semantic deficit was diagnosed by semantic paraphasias in naming (errors
B3. Elaborated results and explanations about the diagnosis of the lexical impairment source
that are semantically related to the target word) and difficulty in various semantic tasks:
The tests in section 2.1.2 summarized the deficit of each of the participants. In this
semantic verbal fluency, synonym judgment, a word association test, and a spoken/written
Appendix we bring the more detailed results and considerations for the ascription of a locus
word-picture matching test (PALPA 47/48, Kay et al., 1992; Hebrew version by Gil and
of deficit to each participant's performance. According to the results, presented in Table 2,
Edelstein, 2001). These tasks are described below.
two participants (SN, AA) were diagnosed with a lexical-semantic deficit. They had difficulty
In the semantic verbal fluency task, participants were asked to say as many names of
clothes and as many names of wild animals as they could think of, each in 1 minute.
in the word-picture matching test, in which they produced mainly semantic errors – close and
distant. SN performed at chance level on the synonym judgment test. Both could not name
The synonym judgment test includes 37 pairs of words, of which 16 pairs are
any picture in the naming test: SN produced semantic and unrelated paraphasias, and AA
synonyms (e.g., maxol-rikud ‘dance’(, 16 are semantically related but not synonyms (sky-
usually could not produce any response at all. Neither of them could retrieve even a single
stars), and 5 are non-synonym (box-table). The participants were asked to judge for each pair
item on the semantic fluency task. In the picture association test SN's performance was good
52
Lexical-syntactic information in aphasia
53
Lexical-syntactic information in aphasia
(he had only one error), and AA's performance was slightly below the threshold of preserved
and Gvion, 2002) by Friedmann and Gvion (2007) and Gvion and Friedmann (2008) and
performance, with 3 errors (still considerably above chance level). AA's slightly low
were found to have significantly shorter phonological working memory spans compared with
performance in the pictures associations test and the existence of unrelated paraphasias in
healthy controls, a finding that supports the conclusion that they have a phonological buffer
SN's naming might indicate an involvement of a mild conceptual deficit for these two
deficit. In addition, BT had a morphological deficit in production. This deficit was
participants.
demonstrated in tasks of prepositions completion, reading of prepositions and determiners,
Three participants (AO, SM, BP) were diagnosed with a lexical-phonological deficit.
reading and repetition of morphologically complex words, and in the production of inflected
They performed flawlessly in the associations test, in the word-picture matching test and in
verbs. The existence of a morphological deficit in production also supports a deficit at the
the synonym judgment test. AO and BP, who were tested on the fluency tasks, could retrieve
level of the phonological output buffer (Dotan and Friedmann, 2007).
more words on the semantic fluency task than on the phonological fluency task. The three of
them produced semantic paraphasias in addition to phonological paraphasias (SM produced
more semantic than phonological paraphasias) (see Caramazza and Hillis, 1990 and Howard
and Gatehouse, 2006 regarding the existence of semantic paraphasias in a lexicalphonological deficit). Finally, the three participants showed a frequency effect in naming, an
effect ascribed to the phonological output lexicon, but not a length effect or a syllable
frequency effect, which are related to the phonological output buffer. Their performance in
the words and nonwords repetition tests was good. Their good nonword repetition indicates,
in line with the effect analyses, that their deficit resides in the phonological output lexicon,
rather than in the phonological output buffer.
Five participants (YD, ND, MK, AG, BT) were diagnosed with a phonological buffer
deficit. They performed flawlessly in the associations test, in the word-picture matching test
and in the synonym judgment test. YD and ND, who were tested on the fluency tasks
retrieved more words on the semantic fluency task than on the phonological fluency task. In
the naming test and in spontaneous speech, they produced mainly phonological errors – many
of them approximations: conduit d’approche and metatheses – and only few semantic errors.
They were the only participants who produced only faithful approximations. A length effect
was found for 3 participants (YD, MK, AG) and a syllable frequency effect was found for 4
them (YD, MK, AG, BT). ND had many hesitation responses and did not produce enough
phonological errors to allow for a reliable assessment of syllable frequency effect and length
effect on his errors. A lexical frequency effect, which is related to the phonological lexicon,
was not found for 4 of the participants (ND, MK, AG, BT). The performance of these 5
participants in the nonword reading and nonword repetition tests was very poor. Two of the
participants with a phonological buffer deficit (ND, MK) were tested with phonological
working memory tests (FriGvi Battery for the Assessment of Working Memory; Friedmann
54