LINGUISTIC SPECIFIC TREATMENT IN APHASIA

句子处理的语言学方法的有效性 无语法、布罗卡失语症患者的生产缺陷， 产生（和理解）“复杂”句子的困难-- 名词短语（NPs）被移出其规范的句子 在这项研究中检查了位置。 考虑到以下方面： 理论语言学（即，政府约束理论（Chomsky，1981） 1986））和语言学、心理语言学和神经语言学文献 在句子处理方面，这种处理是专门为训练而设计的。 通过控制已知的语言属性来控制复杂句子 句子的形成和强调语言原则， 不同的句子类型。 利用潜在的语言 代表的句子，受试者将被训练欣赏 主题作用分配的初步国家方案，并运作所需的 运动，最终得出表面形式的Wh问题，对象裂缝， 和被动句（即，考虑到“阿尔法行动”的规则要么 或NP-运动（Chomsky，1981））。 在一系列实验中，单- 采用受试者实验设计，研究 训练和未训练的句子，同时仔细控制词汇和 句法性质 提出了以下实验性问题： 1)对特定的WH-移动结构的处理（例如，“什么？” 问题）导致未训练结构的一般化产生， 在类似的WH运动上（例如，“谁”的问题）; 2)治疗是否 从WH-移动导出的句子（例如，wh-疑问句）一般化为 未经训练的句子（例如，物体裂缝）， 表面的实现，但也是从WH运动派生的？3)并 从WH-移位导出的训练结构推广到未经训练的 NP-运动衍生的结构，反之亦然？4)并 从依赖于Np-或Np-的较复杂句子到依赖于Np-或Np-的较不复杂句子的概括 这种训练产生的wh-运动（复杂性定义为 句子表层形式中NP的数量和 动词表征的内在复杂性）; 5)剂量治疗 影响自发话语的方面？6)生产治疗 影响理解？（7）“语言特异性”治疗如何 与其他句子产生缺陷的治疗方法相比？ 这项研究将可能导致新的和有效的治疗， 有句子产生缺陷的失语症患者。 如果我们的假设 关于需要考虑潜在的表示是正确的 异常产生的句子，然后在句子之间进行概括 依靠相同的机制，但具有不同的表面形式， 知道了 此外，学习和泛化模式在多大程度上 根据语言学理论做出的预测，将提供 有关预测故障的理论价值的信息 和失语症的恢复模式。

The efficacy of a linguistic-specific approach for treatment of sentence production deficits in agrammatic, Broca's aphasic patients who evince difficulty with producing (and comprehending) "complex" sentences -- sentences where noun phrases (NPs) have been moved out of their canonical positions is examined in this research. In consideration of aspects of theoretical linguistics (i.e., Government Binding theory (Chomsky, 1981, 1986)) and the linguistic, psycholinguistic, and neurolinguistic literature on sentence processing, this treatment was designed explicitly for training complex sentences by controlling linguistic properties known to underlie sentence formation and by emphasizing linguistic principles used across different sentence types. Exploiting the underlying linguistic representation of sentences, subjects will be trained to appreciate the thematic role assignments of sentential NPs and to operate the required movement to eventually derive surface forms of Wh questions, object clefts, and passive sentences (i.e., considering "Move Alpha" rules -- either Wh- or Np-Movement (Chomsky, 1981)). In a series of experiments, single- subject experimental designs are utilized to study the relation among trained and untrained sentences while carefully controlling lexical and syntactic properties. The following experimental questions are posed: 1) Does treatment of particular Wh-movement structures (e.g., "What" questions) result in generalized production of untrained structures relying on similar Wh-movement (e.g., "Who" questions)?; 2) does treatment of sentences derived from Wh-movement (e.g., Wh-questions) generalize to untrained sentences (e.g., object clefts) that are very different in their surface realizations, yet are also derived from Wh-movement?; 3) does training structures derived from Wh-movement generalize to untrained structures derived from NP-movement, and vice versa?; 4) does generalization from more to less complex sentences relying on either Np- or Wh-movement result from this training (with complexity defined in terms of the number of NPs in the surface form of sentences and in terms of the inherent complexity of the verb's representation)?; 5) does treatment affect aspects of spontaneous discourse?; 6) does production treatment influence comprehension?; and (7) how does 'linguistic-specific' treatment compare with other treatments for sentence production deficits? This research will potentially result in new and efficacious treatment for aphasic individuals with sentence production deficits. If our hypotheses are correct concerning the need to consider the underlying representation of aberrantly produced sentences, then generalization across sentences relying on the same mechanisms but with different surface forms should be noted. Further, the extent to which learning and generalization patterns follow predictions made based on linguistic theory, will provide information concerning the value of such theories for predicting breakdown and recovery patterns in aphasia.