Training and Generalized Production of wh - and NP-Movement Structures in Agrammatic Aphasia

Abstract

The present research examines production of "complex" sentences, which involve movement of noun phrases (NPs), in 2 agrammatic aphasic subjects. According to linguistic theory (Chomsky, 1991, 1993), such sentences are derived using one of two movement operations, either wh- or NP-movement, subsumed under the general rule "move alpha." In this experiment recovery of both wh- and NP-movement derived sentences was investigated using a treatment research paradigm. Subjects were sequentially trained to produce either wh-movement (i.e., who questions, object clefts) or NP-movement (i.e., passives, subject-raising structures) derived sentences. Throughout training, generalization to untrained sentences relying on both types of movement was tested. The influence of training on aspects of narrative discourse also was examined. Results showed generalization patterns constrained to type of movement. Training wh-movement structures resulted in generalized production of untrained wh-movement structures without influencing production of NP-movement structures. Similarly, training of NP-movement structures resulted in generalization only to other sentence types also relying on NP-movement. Aspects of sentence production in narrative contexts also was improved with treatment. These data indicate that movement to an argument (A) position as in NP-movement is distinct from movement to a non-argument (A-bar) position, required in wh-movement. The site where movement terminates in the s-structure of noncanonical sentences appears to influence sentence production. These findings show that linguistic properties of sentences influence sentence production breakdown and recovery in aphasia.

Evaluating Treatment and Generalization Patterns of Two Theoretically Motivated Sentence Comprehension Therapies

“…Across the ANCOVAs, more generalization was observed from relatively complex sentence structures (OR and PA) than from relatively simpler sentence structures (OC and UNACC). The pattern of greater instances of generalization from complex to simple structures than from simple to complex structures is consistent with prior treatment research examining the effects of complexity in syntactic (Thompson, 2001(Thompson, , 2006Thompson et al, 1993Thompson et al, , 1997Thompson et al, , 1998Thompson et al, , 2003 and semantic (Kiran, 2007(Kiran, , 2008Kiran, Sandberg, & Sebastian, 2011; therapies. Therefore, results add to the body of work in support of the CATE, which proposes that treatment targeting complex structures enhances generalization to relatively less complex structures.…”

“…In particular, as noted in the introduction, studies of the TUF approach (Ballard & Thompson, 1999;Jacobs & Thompson, 2000;Thompson & Shapiro, 2005;Thompson et al, 1993Thompson et al, , 1996Thompson et al, , 1997 frequently observed greater generalization to sentences with the same type of movement than to sentences with a different type of movement. Furthermore, it is important to highlight that the focus of the treatments in the current study was on the identification of thematic role in comprehension, which addresses movement only implicitly.…”

“…One of the goals of TUF is to promote generalization from trained to untrained sentences; therefore, researchers systematically probe progress on syntactically related and unrelated untrained sentence structures. It has been found that generalization following TUF is greatest to linguistically related sentences (Ballard & Thompson, 1999;Jacobs & Thompson, 2000;Thompson & Shapiro, 2005;Thompson, Shapiro, & Roberts, 1993;Thompson, Shapiro, Tait, Jacobs, & Schneider, 1996;Thompson et al, 1997), lending support for specific deficit hypotheses that suggest that specific syntactic operations lie at the root of deficits. Furthermore, generalization occurs frequently from complex to simple structures but less frequently from simple to complex structures (Thompson, Ballard, & Shapiro, 1998;Thompson & Shapiro, 2005Thompson, Shapiro, Kiran, & Sobecks, 2003;Thompson et al, 1993Thompson et al, , 1997.…”

“…It has been found that generalization following TUF is greatest to linguistically related sentences (Ballard & Thompson, 1999;Jacobs & Thompson, 2000;Thompson & Shapiro, 2005;Thompson, Shapiro, & Roberts, 1993;Thompson, Shapiro, Tait, Jacobs, & Schneider, 1996;Thompson et al, 1997), lending support for specific deficit hypotheses that suggest that specific syntactic operations lie at the root of deficits. Furthermore, generalization occurs frequently from complex to simple structures but less frequently from simple to complex structures (Thompson, Ballard, & Shapiro, 1998;Thompson & Shapiro, 2005Thompson, Shapiro, Kiran, & Sobecks, 2003;Thompson et al, 1993Thompson et al, , 1997. Together, these observations have led to the establishment of the complexity account of treatment efficacy (CATE), which states that training complex sentences leads to generalization to less complex sentences with shared underlying linguistic properties (Ballard & Thompson, 1999;Jacobs & Thompson, 2000;Thompson & Shapiro, 1995Thompson et al, 1997Thompson et al, , 1998Thompson et al, , 2003.…”

“…Furthermore, generalization occurs frequently from complex to simple structures but less frequently from simple to complex structures (Thompson, Ballard, & Shapiro, 1998;Thompson & Shapiro, 2005Thompson, Shapiro, Kiran, & Sobecks, 2003;Thompson et al, 1993Thompson et al, , 1997. Together, these observations have led to the establishment of the complexity account of treatment efficacy (CATE), which states that training complex sentences leads to generalization to less complex sentences with shared underlying linguistic properties (Ballard & Thompson, 1999;Jacobs & Thompson, 2000;Thompson & Shapiro, 1995Thompson et al, 1997Thompson et al, , 1998Thompson et al, , 2003. These generalization results can be interpreted within specific deficit accounts.…”