Korean agrammatic production

Abstract

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.

What's in a word? Morphological awareness and vocabulary knowledge in three languages

“…Despite its relatively minimal use of inflectional morphology, difficulties in the appropriate use of inflections have also been found for Cantonese children diagnosed with SLI (Stokes & Fletcher, 2003). This appears to be the case for Korean as well, as an adult study of two Korean aphasics (Halliwell, 2000) showed that language impairments in Korean could specifically target inflectional morphology, with both patients showing enormous difficulties with verb tense and case markings on nominals.…”

Production and Comprehension of Time Reference in Korean Nonfluent Aphasia

“…The current findings also complement previous studies on verb inflection in Korean. Lee (2000 , 2003 ) and Halliwell (2000) , examining impairment and sparing of various functional categories, have shown that tense marking on lexical verbs is difficult to produce and comprehend ( Lee, 2003 ) in speakers with nonfluent aphasia. Park et al, (2006) reported that past and present tenses are more preserved than future tense; however, it is unclear if this is specific to nonfluent aphasia because they tested a group of participants with fluent and nonfluent aphasia ( Bos, Brederoo, & Bastiaanse, 2011 ; Kljajevic & Bastiaanse, 2011 for different impairment patterns or error types in participants with fluent aphasia).…”

“…Individuals with nonfluent agrammatic aphasia show difficulty with verbal morphology. In particular, difficulty with tense marking (e.g., he walked ) has been reported in nonfluent aphasia across many languages, including English ( Arabatzi & Edwards, 2002 ; Clahsen & Ali, 2009 ; Dickey, Milman & Thompson, 2005; Druks & Carroll, 2005 ; Faroqi-Shah & Thompson, 2007 ; Faroqi-Shah & Dickey, 2009 ; Lee, Milman, & Thompson, 2008 ), Korean ( Halliwell, 2000 ; Lee, 2000 , 2003 ; cf. Park, Kim, Park, & Shin, 2006 ), Hebrew ( Friedmann & Grodzinsky, 1997 ), German ( Burchert, Swoboda-Moll, & De Bleser, 2005 ; Wenzlaff & Clahsen, 2004 , 2005 ), Dutch ( Bastiaanse, 2008 ; Kok, van Doorn, & Kolk, 2007 ), Greek ( Fyndanis, Varlokosta, & Tsapkini, 2012 ; Nanousi, Masterson, Druks, & Atkinson, 2006 ; Stavrakaki & Kouvava, 2003 ; Varlokosta et al, 2006 ) and others.…”

Sobre a classificação gradual das preposições

“…De uma maneira geral, é defendido que, quando as preposições forem unidades morfologicamente independentes, as preposições lexicais (ou locativas ou ainda não governadas) estão "preservadas" na fala agramática, ao passo que as obrigatórias (ou funcionais, não lexicais ou ainda governadas) são "omitidas" na fala agramática. Ainda há estudos que afirmam que, quando amalgamadas a outros itens linguísticos, as preposições são mais facilmente substituídas (ver FRIEDERICI et al, 1992;HALLIWELL, 2000;MENN;OBLER, 1990;NILLIPOUR, 2000).…”