Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Agrammatism as evidence about grammar

M C Linebarger1

  • 1Valley Forge Engineering Center, Unisys Corporation, Paoli, PA 19301, USA.

Brain and Language
|July 1, 1995
PubMed
Summary

Agrammatic aphasia research reveals syntactic sensitivities. This study supports modular syntax but offers no specific evidence for government binding theory over other grammar models.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Grammatical encoding in aphasia: evidence from a "processing prosthesis".

Brain and language·2000
Same author

Semantic influences on thematic role assignment: evidence from normals and aphasics.

Brain and language·1998
Same author

Sensitivity to grammatical structure in so-called agrammatic aphasics.

Cognition·1983
See all related articles

Area of Science:

  • Neuroscience
  • Linguistics
  • Psychology

Background:

  • Agrammatic aphasia presents challenges in understanding syntactic processing deficits.
  • Experimental studies offer insights into the syntactic information processed by individuals with agrammatism.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To contrast three prominent hypotheses of agrammatism: chain-disruption, trade-off, and mapping.
  • To evaluate the implications of agrammatism for theories of normal syntactic function.
  • To assess the evidential support for specific grammatical theories, such as government binding theory.

Main Methods:

  • Review and critical analysis of experimental evidence concerning agrammatic aphasia.
  • Comparative evaluation of the chain-disruption, trade-off, and mapping hypotheses.
  • Argumentation based on existing findings to support or refute theoretical claims.

Main Results:

  • Counterarguments are presented against the chain-disruption and trade-off hypotheses.
  • Evidence from agrammatism supports the modularity of syntax.
  • The findings do not provide specific evidence favoring government binding theory over alternative grammatical frameworks.

Conclusions:

  • Agrammatism supports a modular view of syntactic processing.
  • Current evidence from agrammatism is insufficient to distinguish the psychological reality of government binding theory compared to other grammar theories.

Related Experiment Videos