Encoding and decoding motion events in English and French:
comparative case-studies in agrammatism and anomia
CASE
DESCRIPTION
Languages encode space onto lexical and
syntactic structures in strikingly different ways
[1]. With respect to the expression of motion,
some languages express Manner in verb roots
and Path in satellites (e.g., English: The woman
walked into the room); whereas others lexicalize
Path in the verb leaving Manner implicit or
peripheral (e.g., French: La femme rentre dans
la chambre [en marchant]). Such typological
properties strongly constrain the way in which
speakers choose to encode in discourse different
motion components (Path/Manner), thus raising
questions concerning the relation between
language and thought [2,3]. In addition, such
linguistic diversity is of great interest for the
study of aphasic speakers who typically present
dissociations between lexical/syntactic
knowledge. Despite some crosslinguistic studies
of aphasia [4,5], little is still known about
universal vs. language-specific aspects of
encoding [6] and decoding [7] processes across
aphasic syndromes [8].
INTRODUCTION
Efstathia SOROLI 1, Maya Hickmann 1 & Halima SAHRAOUI 2
1 Laboratoire Structures Formelles du Langage (UMR 7023), CNRS & Université Paris 8, France, 2 University of Toulouse 2-Le Mirail, OCTOGONE-Jacques Lordat Unit (EA 4156), Brain Sciences Institute (IFR 96), France
MATERIAL
Figure 1. Example of the comprehension task • Stimuli: voluntary
motion short clips
• Displacements
were executed in a
certain Manner
(run, jump, climb,
swim, crawl, walk,
ride a bicycle /
scooter) and along
a certain Path (up,
down, across, into,
out-of).
DISCUSSION Comprehension:
Aphasic participants had no difficulties in
correctly interpreting sentences, but showed
overall slower performance as compared to
controls and variation across languages and
within syndromes with respect to RTs.
Production:
The findings show overall crosslinguistic
differences in the structures used by controls
resulting in more semantic density in English
(Manner verbs with Path adjuncts) than in
French (Path verbs, infrequent Manner).
In aphasia:
• apart from syndrome-related symptoms
(e.g., vulnerability of morphology in
agrammatics)
• overall low semantic density in the
utterances of aphasic speakers
• and preference for encoding the most
basic component (Path)
The ‘same’ syndromes looked quite different
from one language to another showing that
language-types account for more variance
than syndromes. More specifically:
• with respect to French aphasia: the
agrammatic speaker mostly combined
Path satellites with light verbs without
verbal morphology (1); whereas the
anomic mostly focused on Path,
expressed in verbs (2)
• with respect to English aphasia: the
agrammatic participant used either Path
devices (down, top) or Manner verbs
omitting tensed auxiliaries (3); while the
anomic omitted most verbs, expressing
mainly Path information in peripheral
devices (4).
[1] Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
[2] Hickmann, M., Taranne, P. & Bonnet, Ph. (2009). Motion in first language acquisition: manner and path in French and in English. Journal of Child Language, 36:4, 705-741.
[3] Slobin, D. I. (1996). From "thought and language" to "thinking to speaking". In J. J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity, 70-96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[4] Menn, L. & Obler L.K. (1990). Cross-Language data and theories of agrammatism. In L. Menn & L.K. Obler, (Eds.), Agrammatic Aphasia. A cross language narrative sourcebook, 1369-1388. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
[5] Nespoulous J-L. (1999). Universal vs language-specific constraints in agrammatic aphasia. In C. Fuchs & S. Robert (Eds.) Language diversity and cognitive representation, 195-207. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
[6] Soroli, E., Sahraoui, H. & Sacchett, C. (2011). Encoding motion events across languages : typological constraints in bilingual agrammatism. Science of Aphasia XII Proceedings, 155-158. Barcelona: Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona.
[7] Soroli, E., Hickmann, M. Nespoulous, J-L., Tran, T. M. (2010). Production and Comprehension of spatial language in French agrammatic and anomic aphasics : cross-linguistic perspectives. In Papathanasiou I., Fragouli A., Kotsopoulos A.& Litinas N. (eds.), 28th World Congress of the International Association
of Logopedics and Phoniatrics Proceedings – IALP 2010, Athens : Parisianou Editions, 88-93.
[8] Soroli E., Hickmann M., Tran T.M., Nespoulous J.-L., Boudre H. (2010). Expression du mouvement et pathologie du langage : Perspective typologique en aphasie. In Neveu F., Muni Toke V., Durand J., Klinger T., Mondada L. & Prévost S. (eds.), Congrès Mondial de Linguistique rançaise - CMLF 2010, Paris :
Institut de Linguistique française, 1575-1590.
[9] MacWhinney, B. (1995). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
RESULTS French controls : Mainly one component
expressed, some Path+Manner encoded
in Verbs (V), but mostly Path in the verb or
in other Devices (fig.3-left)
English controls: Systematically both
Path and Manner expressed in the
utterances. Typical pattern: M in the verb,
P in other Devices (fig.3-right)
French SWA: one information expressed,
or even none.
- Agrammatic -> Z in V and P/M in
the periphery (1)
- Anomic -> P in V (2)
English SWA: Mainly utterances
expressing one component, in contrast to
the typical pattern.
- Agrammatic -> M in V or either
only P in other devices (3)
- Anomic -> P in periphery (4).
METHOD To measure the relative role of
language-independent and language-
specific factors, we compared
agrammatic and anomic speakers of
English and French (N=4) with control
speakers (N=40) in how they perform
comprehension and production tasks.
In comprehension, participants were
asked to choose the clip that best
corresponded to a sentence presented
auditorily and which varied in the
number and the semantic components
encoded (P-only, M-only, PM-sentences,
see fig.1). The analyses examined
response accuracy and reaction times.
In production participants were asked to
describe motion events presented
visually (fig.2), and analyses examined
the types of information expressed
(Manner/Path), the linguistic means
used (verbs/adjuncts), and the
compensation strategies followed by
aphasic speakers.
The production data were transcribed in
CHAT format [9] and coded for semantic
information, parts of speech, and
utterance type. Data were coded with
respect to information density (the
quantity of the information expressed in
the utterances), focus (Manner and Path
information as identified in all parts of
speech) and locus (Manner and Path
information as expressed in the main
verbs and in other linguistic means)
Our study aims to determine the
respective role of language-
independent (syndrome-related) vs.
language-specific (typological) factors
in fluent and non-fluent aphasia; the
first predicting broad differences
between syndromes but little
differentiation as a function of
language, the second predicting more
differentiation as a function of
language type, with few differences in
the nature of grammatical breakdown
among aphasia types.
• The aphasic data first show a dissociation
between relatively spared comprehension
skills, language differences in processing
times, and important difficulties in
production.
• Although syndrome-related factors play
an important role in aphasia, similar
typological language properties have a
strong impact on both the encoding and
decoding of speakers with aphasia.
• Typology must be taken into account in
aphasia research and in the study of the
language-thought interface more
generally as a factor that can affect
performance in significant ways.
Accuracy rates: ceiling effects for controls and
participants with aphasia
Reaction times: significant variations (fig.4)
- Overall control participants spent significantly
more time to respond to sentences that
provided both Path and Manner information.
French pattern: PM=M>P
English pattern: PM>M=P
- In French: the speaker with anomia was the
slowest of all in processing target sentences
- In English: it was the speaker with
agrammatism with the longer reaction times.
French: anomic>agrammatic>controls
English: agrammatic>anomic>controls
Production
Comprehension
a. Target Sentence - Run-Up: ‘There is someone running up’
b. Video/Choice 1 - Run-Up : A man ascending a hill running
c. Video/Choice 2 - Jump-Up: A man ascending a hill jumping
Figure 2. Examples of the material used in production
CONCLUSION
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
PM P M
French controls
French agrammatic
French anomic
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
PM P M
English controls
English agrammatic
English anomic
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
PM M P Zero NR PM M P Zero NR
FRENCH ENGLISH
V
OTH
Figure 3 Information locus in control’s productions
Figure 4 RTs in comprehension task across languages and populations
(1)faire gauche droite/elle est avec rollers (‘to do left right/she is with rollerskates’)
(2)...qui monte sur le poteau/rentre dans chez
elle (‘who ascends at the pole/enters to her house’)
(3)…walking/skating/down caterpillar
(4) There up there inside/from one to the next
one
49th Annual International Meeting of the Academy of Aphasia, 15-18 October, 2011, Montreal, CANADA