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