The forgotten grammatical category: Adjective use in agrammatic aphasia

Abstract

Background In contrast to nouns and verbs, the use of adjectives in agrammatic aphasia has not been systematically studied. However, because of the linguistic and psycholinguistic attributes of adjectives, some of which overlap with nouns and some with verbs, analysis of adjective production is important for testing theories of word class production deficits in agrammatism. Aims The objective of the current study was to compare adjective use in agrammatic and healthy individuals, focusing on three factors: overall adjective production rate, production of predicative and attributive adjectives, and production of adjectives with complex argument structure. Method & Procedures Narratives elicited from 14 agrammatic and 14 control participants were coded for open class grammatical category production (i.e., nouns, verbs, adjectives), with each adjective also coded for its syntactic environment (attributive/predicative) and argument structure. Outcomes & Results Overall, agrammatic speakers used adjectives in proportions similar to that of cognitively healthy speakers. However, they exhibited a greater proportion of predicative adjectives and a lesser proportion of attributive adjectives, compared to controls. Additionally, agrammatic participants produced adjectives with less complex argument structure than controls. Conclusions The overall normal-like frequency of adjectives produced by agrammatic speakers suggests that agrammatism does not involve an inherent difficulty with adjectives as a word class or with predication, or that it entails a deficit in processing low imageability words. However, agrammatic individuals’ reduced production of attributive adjectives and adjectives with complements extends previous findings of an adjunction deficit and of impairment in complex argument structure processing, respectively, to the adjectival domain. The results suggest that these deficits are not tied to a specific grammatical category.

Cortical and structural‐connectivity damage correlated with impaired syntactic processing in aphasia

“…Here, we have focused on aphasic task performance on a battery that is specifically designed to identify broad problems with sentence production and comprehension that can be related to verbs and canonicity of word order in English, the NAVS. It does not address specific problems aphasic speakers may have with other aspects of syntax, such as anaphora (Bos, Dragoy, Avrutin, Iskra, & Bastiaanse, 2014; Choy & Thompson, 2010; Engel, Shapiro, & Love, 2018), case marking (Bastiaanse, Jonkers, Ruigendijk, & Van Zonneveld, 2003), discourse-linked temporal references (Bastiaanse, 2013), and adjectives (Meltzer-Asscher & Thompson, 2014), to name but a few.…”

“Good,” “Hopeless,” and “Alright”: People with Aphasia Expressing Their Opinions on Their Rehabilitation Experiences

“…Even the most severely impaired participant used adjectives and therefore had access to one of the most frequent ways in which types of appraisal can be expressed (Martin & White, 2005). However, participants used a significantly lower proportion of adjectives compared to cognitively healthy speakers (Meltzer-Asscher & Thompson, 2014).…”

No escape from the island: On extraction from complement wh-clauses in English

“…The data could be taken to suggest that it is more diffi cult to integrate an incompatible [-MVC] adjunct, cf. also that agrammatic speakers seem to have an adjunction defi cit: They prefer predicative adjectives over attributive ones, and they are signifi cantly slower at integrating adjuncts than arguments (Lee & Thompson 2011;Meltzer-Asscher & Thompson 2014). (However, Nyvad, Kizach & Christensen (2014) found no difference for non-aphasic speakers in processing time for integrating arguments versus adjuncts.)…”