It has been shown across several languages that verb inflection is difficult for agrammatic aphasic speakers. In particular, Tense inflection is vulnerable. Several theoretical accounts for this have been posed, for example, a pure syntactic one suggesting that the Tense node is unavailable due to its position in the syntactic tree (Friedmann & Grodzinsky, 1997); one suggesting that the interpretable features of the Tense node are underspecified (Burchert, Swoboda-Moll, & De Bleser, 2005; Wenzlaff & Clahsen, 2004, 2005); and a morphosemantic one, arguing that the diacritic Tense features are affected in agrammatism (Faroqi–Shah & Dickey, 2009; Lee, Milman, & Thompson, 2008). However recent findings (Bastiaanse, 2008) and a reanalysis of some oral production studies (e.g. Lee et al., 2008; Nanousi, Masterson, Druks, & Atkinson, 2006) suggest that both Tense and Aspect are impaired and, most importantly, reference to the past is selectively impaired, both through simple verb forms (such as simple past in English) and through periphrastic verb forms (such as the present perfect, ‘has V-ed’, in English). It will be argued that reference to the past is discourse linked and reference to the present and future is not (Zagona, 2003, in press). In-line with Avrutin’s (2000) theory that suggests discourse linking is impaired in Broca’s aphasia, the PAst DIscourse LInking Hypothesis (PADILIH) has been formulated. Three predictions were tested: (1) patients with agrammatic aphasia are selectively impaired in use of grammatical morphology associated with reference to the past, whereas, inflected forms which refer to the present and future are relatively spared; (2) this impairment is language-independent; and (3) this impairment will occur in both production and comprehension. Agrammatic Chinese, English and Turkish speakers were tested with the Test for Assessing Reference of Time (TART; Bastiaanse, Jonkers, & Thompson, unpublished). Results showed that both the English and Turkish agrammatic speakers performed as hypothesized, showing a selective deficit for production of inflected forms referring to the past, despite the typological difference between the languages. The Chinese agrammatic speakers were poor in reference to the past as well, but reference to the present and future also was severely impaired. For comprehension, the results were strikingly similar for the three languages: reference to the past was impaired for all. These results confirmed our hypothesis that reference to the past is discourse linked and, therefore, grammatical morphology used for reference to the past is impaired in agrammatic aphasia, whether this is done through Tense and/or Aspect markers.

Background Classical aphasiology, based on the study of stroke sequelae, fuses speech fluency and grammatical ability. Nonfluent (Broca's) aphasia often is accompanied by agrammatism; whereas in the fluent aphasias grammatical deficits are not typical. The assumption that a similar relationship exists in primary progressive aphasia (PPA) has led to the dichotomization of this syndrome into fluent and nonfluent subtypes. Aims This study compared elements of fluency and grammatical production in the narrative speech of individuals with PPA to determine if they can be dissociated from one another. Method Speech samples from 37 individuals with PPA, clinically assigned to agrammatic (N=11), logopenic (N=20) and semantic (N=6) subtypes, and 13 cognitively healthy control participants telling the “Cinderella Story” were analyzed for fluency (i.e., words per minute (WPM) and mean length of utterance in words (MLU-W)) and grammaticality (i.e., the proportion of grammatically correct sentences, open-to-closed-class word ratio, noun-to-verb ratio, and correct production of verb inflection, noun morphology, and verb argument structure.) Between group differences were analyzed for each variable. Correlational analyses examined the relation between WPM and each grammatical variable, and an off-line measure of sentence production. Outcomes And Results Agrammatic and logopenic groups both had lower scores on the fluency measures and produced significantly fewer grammatical sentences than did semantic and control groups. However, only the agrammatic group evinced significantly impaired production of verb inflection and verb argument structure. In addition, some semantic participants showed abnormal open-to-closed and noun-to-verb ratios in narrative speech. When the sample was divided on the basis of fluency, all the agrammatic participants fell in the nonfluent category. The logopenic participants varied in fluency but those with low fluency showed variable performance on measures of grammaticality. Correlational analyses and scatter plots comparing fluency and each grammatical variable revealed dissociations within PPA participants, with some nonfluent participants showing normal grammatical skill. Conclusions Grammatical production is a complex construct comprised of correct usage of several language components, each of which can be selectively affected by disease. This study demonstrates that individuals with PPA show dissociations between fluency and grammatical production in narrative speech. Grammatical ability, and its relationship to fluency, varies from individual to individual, and from one variant of PPA to another, and can even be found in individuals with semantic PPA in whom a fluent aphasia is usually thought to accompany preserved ability to produce grammatical utterances.

CLAN automatically and reliably codes most lexical and morphological variables but does not automatically quantify variables important for detailing production deficits in agrammatic aphasia, although conventions for manually coding some of these variables in Codes for the Human Analysis of Transcripts are possible. Suggestions for combining automated programs and manual coding to capture these variables or revising CLAN to automate coding of these variables are discussed.