ACCESS TO ARGUMENT STRUCTURE IN AGRAMMATISM

我们建议解释伪装成保留的句法能力的原因 通常被描述为“无语法”的病人(字面上没有 语法)，并强调他们的语言行为的那些方面 在开发成功的诊断工具和 可以最大限度地提高他们的沟通能力的疗法。 语法能力中保留的备用句法能力的观察 似乎否定了语言理论，这些理论假定语言在 句法和词汇。当语言故障不能正常进行时 由语法理论预测的台词，人们被引导假设 理论对我们对语言崩溃的认识没有任何帮助 它的补救措施。此外，我们还可能被迫得出这样的结论 来自失语症的数据对发展或完善失语症没有任何帮助 语言学理论。幸运的是，来自语法的数据的前提是 与语言学理论不一致是错误的，因为这样的结论将 对开发细粒度的诊断工具或 语言信息灵通的补救方法。 我们认为，被归因于 语法学，使这个标签有点像yyxmoron，实际上是幸免的 词汇能力。最近的语言学和心理语言学研究， 包括我们自己的，表明动词的词汇表征 包括有关参数(名词)的类型和数量的足够信息 短语或句子补语，以及任何其他必须使用的词汇 材料，如助词、量词补语和相关的习语 材料)单个动词所要求的等同于短语的 其动词短语在无效果情况下的结构表征 语法所需的任何移动规则。至关重要的是，在我们看来， 一种结构形态，它表征了语法关系 句子中的元素不是语法的一部分，而是语法的一部分 词典。事实上，它是动词词汇表达的一部分。 语法学保留并可以使用这些词汇信息。他们做不到的事 DO是解开句法操作对这一基础的影响 配置。它们只展示了被解释为句法的东西 理解这些句子，他们可以在这些句子中解码信息 词汇知识的基础。从动词的词条来看，我们可以 预测哪些句子会有问题。 具体来说，我们将使用我们对论元结构和动词类别的研究 组织更好地描述句子的产生和特点 无语法说话者的理解能力 有助于开发可以利用这一短语的疗法 结构信息出现在词条中，以便于 某些句法结构的产生和加工，而 指示那些可能不太容易进入的建筑。至 确认我们已经确定了适当的和特定的语法 的缺陷，我们建议进行一项 广泛的一系列造句和理解实验， 测试他们的在线性能以及他们在更多 传统的次要任务。 语法学是这类研究的逻辑起点， 因为他们的语言分解模式与丰富的 我们拥护的词汇论，也是因为我们可以获得大量的 大量预先存在的生产数据，我们可以将其用作我们 模特。然而，我们打算将我们的范围扩大到包括一名代表。 失语症主题的范围，因为我们相信我们的模型使特定和 关于系统的和不同的备用模式的可验证预测 以及其他失语症人群中的损失。

We propose to account for what masquerade as preserved syntactic abilities by patients commonly characterized as "agrammatic" (literally without grammar) and to highlight those aspects of their linguistic behavior that warrant special attention in developing successful diagnostic tools and therapies that can maximize their communicative abilities. Observations of spared syntactic abilities preserved in agrammatics might seem to disconfirm linguistic theories that assume autonomy between the syntax and the lexicon. When language breakdown fails to pattern along lines predicted by a grammatical theory, one is led to assume that the theory has nothing to contribute to our knowledge of language breakdown and its remediations. Furthermore, we might also be forced to conclude that data from aphasia make no contribution to the development or refinement of linguistic theory. Fortunately, the premise that data from agrammatics is incompatible with linguistic theory is false since such a conclusion would offer little hope for the development of fine grained diagnostic tools or linguistically informed remediation methods. We argue that the spared "syntactic abilities" that have been attributed to agrammatics, making this label somewhat of an oyxmoron, are actually spared lexical abilities. Recent linguistic and psycholinguistic research, including our own, indicates that the lexical representation of verbs includes enough information about the type and number of arguments (noun phrases or sentential complements, as well as any other obligatory lexical material such as particles, measure complements, and associated idiomatic material) required by individual verbs to be equivalent to the phrase structure representation of its verb phrase in the absence of the effects of any movement rules required by the syntax. Crucially, in our view the structural configuration that characterizes the grammatical relations among the elements within a sentence is not part of the syntax, but is part of the lexicon. In fact, it is part of the lexical representation of a verb. Agrammatics retain and can use this lexical information. What they cannot do is unravel the effects of syntactic operations on this basic configuration. They only exhibit what has been interpreted as syntactic comprehension in those sentences where they can decode information on the basis of lexical knowledge. From the lexical entry of a verb, we can predict which sentences will be problematic. Specifically, we will use our research on argument structure and verb class organization to better characterize the sentence production and comprehension abilities of agrammatic speakers with a view toward contributing to the development therapies that can utilize the phrase structure information present in lexical entries to facilitate the production and processing of certain syntactic constructions while indicating those constructions that are likely to be less accessible. To verify that we have identified the appropriate and the specific grammatical deficit underlying agrammatic linguistic behavior, we propose to conduct an extensive series of sentence production and comprehension experiments, testing their on-line performance as well as their performance on more traditional secondary tasks. Agrammatics are a logical starting point for this type of study both because their pattern of language breakdown is compatible with the enriched theory of the lexicon we espouse and also because we have access to a large body of preexisting production data we can use as a testing ground for our model. However, we intend to extend our scope to include a representative range of aphasic subjects because we believe our model makes specific and verifiable predictions about systematic and distinct patterns of sparing and loss in other population of aphasics.