Kicking over the traces: A note in response to Zurif and Piñango (1999)

Zurif and Piñango (1999) claimed that they excluded the four agrammatic patients reported by Druks and Marshall (1991) from their review article because two of the patients were nonnative speakers of Hebrew and because the Hebrew sentences we used in our investigations were ungrammatical. In Druks and Marshall (1991) we have shown that the presence or the absence of a trace in two types of Hebrew passives had no effect on the patients' performance. Two patients, without comprehension deficits, performed equally well on both types of passives and two patients, with comprehension deficits, were equally impaired on both types. We remind Zurif and Piñango of our previous response to the claims of ungrammaticality of our materials (Druks & Marshall, 1992) and argue that there were no justifiable reasons for excluding these cases from the review. We also comment on Zurif and Piñango's (1999) and Grodzinsky's (2000) new proposal that the association of agrammatic comprehension should be with Broca's aphasia and not with agrammatism.