Agrammatic aphasia in Arabic

Mimouni, Zohra; Jarema, Gonia

doi:10.1080/02687039708248460

Cited by 11 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A crucial factor in this increased awareness was the publication of a three volume cross-linguistic sourcebook on agrammatic aphasia (Menn & Obler, 1990), which stressed the importance of crosslinguistic research in determining at which level (e.g., phonological, morphological, or syntactic) language impairment arises and stimulated a wide range of studies (Dąbrowska, 2004;Lorch & Whurr, 2003;Mimouni & Jarema, 1997). Emerging research on bilingual aphasia led to the recognition that similar deficits can result in different sets of symptoms between speakers of different languages (Paradis, 1988;Yiu & Worrall, 1996).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The languages of aphasia research: Bias and diversity

Beveridge

Bak

2011

Aphasiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: It is widely believed that the vast majority of articles on aphasia published in international journals are based on observations of English-speaking patients, with a possible more general bias towards western European languages. However, to the best of our knowledge no systematic study has tried to quantify linguistic biases in aphasia research. Aims: To examine the current (first decade of the twenty-first century) representation of different languages in aphasia literature. Methods & Procedures:We examined all articles on aphasia published between 2000 and 2009 in four leading aphasiological journals: Aphasiology, Brain and Language, Journal of Neurolinguistics, and Language and Cognitive Processes, determining the language(s) spoken by the patients. We compared the proportion of articles in a given language with the estimated number of its speakers worldwide. We further analysed the relationship between the language and the methodology, content, and number of citations as well as trends applying to individual journals and changes over time.Outcomes & Results: There was a pronounced overall bias towards articles based on observations of English-speaking patients, accounting for 62% of all papers, 85% of papers on aphasia treatment, and 100% of papers that received more than 50 citations. More generally, there was a strong bias towards western European (Germanic and Romance) languages, accounting for 89% of all papers and 96% of treatment studies. In contrast, non-Indo-European languages, as well as the Slavonic and the Indo-European languages of India were strongly under-represented. Some of the most widely spoken languages in the world, such as Arabic, Hindi, Bengali, Russian, as well as Portuguese, accounted for less than 0.5% of the aphasia literature. This imbalance has not improved over the examined time period; in fact, the percentage of papers on English seems to be increasing. Conclusions: The current aphasia literature is not representative of the world's languages, neither in terms of linguistic typology nor the number of speakers. The extreme bias towards English and other western European languages limits the worldwide applicability of clinical findings (in particular in aphasia therapy) and undermines the universality of theoretical models, which are based on observations from a small number of closely

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The languages of aphasia research: Bias and diversity

Beveridge

Bak

2011

Aphasiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Studies investigating Arabic-speaking participants with brain damage have also provided further evidence that the root-pattern view is a feasible framework on which clinical and research tools can be based (e.g. Béland & Mimouni, 2001;Idrissi & Kehayia, 2004;Idrissi et al, 2002;Khwaileh, 2011;Khwaileh et al, 2015Khwaileh et al, , 2017Mimouni et al, 1998Mimouni et al, , 1997. The processing evidence in support of the root-pattern framework has been prevailing from clinical and neuropsychological data.…”

Section: Arabic Morpho-phonologymentioning

confidence: 98%

“…The processing evidence in support of the root-pattern framework has been prevailing from clinical and neuropsychological data. Mimouni et al (1997) investigated the ways in which agrammatism is manifested in Algerian Arabic through the error analysis of connected speech samples taken from three participants with Broca's aphasia. The authors report a pattern of errors that can be explained by the root-pattern framework, viewing Arabic words as consisting of three morphemes: the consonantal root, the vocalic pattern and a CV skeleton.…”

Section: Arabic Morpho-phonologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most of the research on Arabic processing (Albustanji, 2009;Béland & Mimouni, 2001;Idrissi & Kehayia, 2004;Idrissi et al, 2002;Khwaileh, 2011;Khwaileh et al, 2014Khwaileh et al, , 2015Khwaileh, Mustafawi, Howard, & Herbert, 2016;Khwaileh et al, 2017;Khwaileh, Mustafawi, Herbert, & Howard, 2018;Khwaileh, Mustafawi, Howard, & Herbert, 2019;Mimouni et al, 1998Mimouni et al, , 1997 lack use of standardized material and response categorisation protocols for error analysis. The aim of this paper is to develop a linguistically informed and data-driven response categorisation protocol for language breakdown of the Arabic language.…”

Section: Aim and Scope Of This Papermentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A linguistically-driven response categorisation protocol for Arabic nouns and verbs: clinical and research applications

Khwaileh

Mustafawi

Albustanji

2020

Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research into language breakdown in Arabic has been growing in the last two decades. The field, however, remains challenged by the lack of assessment materials, normative databases, and standards for categorising responses from participants with language impairment. The aim of this paper is to introduce a linguistically driven protocol for categorising responses from Arabic-speaking patients and healthy participants in language production tasks. The protocol is informed by Arabic morphosyntactic/morpho-phonological features such as inflection for gender, person, and number; and on a larger scale agreement in noun phrases and verb phrases. The emerging error categories are applicable to different Arabic varieties and sub-varieties. The data supporting the resulting error categorisation protocol stem from responses from patients with aphasia performing various production tasks.

show abstract

“…However, the range of variation seems not random but systematic and highly constrained. That is, the variation is a function of language-specific features (Grodzinsky, 1990(Grodzinsky, , 1997Hagiwara, 1995;Menn & Obler, 1990;Mimouni & Jarema, 1997;Slobin, 1991;etc.). It is argued, then, that by investigating the characteristics and the extent of this variation we might not only better understand aphasia and its diagnosis, but also advance our knowledge of the structure of human language.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Korean agrammatic production

Halliwell

2000

Aphasiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines general characteristics of agrammatic production in Korean. Using the methodology found in Menn and Obler (1990b), which provides a consistent format for collecting, analysing, and presenting data, the study provides a description of the patterns of sparing and loss based on four types of narratives from two Korean agrammatic speakers. The subjects were seen to display the general properties associated with clinical descriptions of agrammatism: nonfluent, effortful, and dysprosodic. There was a tendency to substitute verbal inflections and omit nominal morphemes. Additionally, the subjects showed a preference for simple syntactic constructions and for canonical word order. It is concluded that the Korean findings parallel others, in that agrammatic aphasia in Korean involves similar basic production parameters but different language-specific characteristics. The findings are also considered in light of the most current syntactic account, the Tree-pruning Hypothesis (Friedmann & Grodzinsky, 1997). NOM = Nominative, ACC = Accusative, PL = plural, ADV = adverbial postposition, ADNZ = adnominaliser, ADVZ = adverbialiser, COMP = complementiser, POSS = possessive, PAST = past tense, HON = honorific, ASP = aspect, VFE = verb-final element.

show abstract

Agrammatic aphasia in Arabic

Cited by 11 publications

References 18 publications

The languages of aphasia research: Bias and diversity

The languages of aphasia research: Bias and diversity

A linguistically-driven response categorisation protocol for Arabic nouns and verbs: clinical and research applications

Korean agrammatic production

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About