Literature DB >> 22319222

Real-time production of arguments and adjuncts in normal and agrammatic speakers.

Jiyeon Lee1, Cynthia K Thompson.   

Abstract

Two eyetracking experiments examined the real-time production of verb arguments and adjuncts in healthy and agrammatic aphasic speakers. Verb argument structure has been suggested to play an important role during grammatical encoding (Bock & Levelt, 1994) and in speech deficits of agrammatic aphasic speakers (Thompson, 2003). However, little is known about how adjuncts are processed during sentence production. The present experiments measured eye movements while speakers were producing sentences with a goal argument (e.g., the mother is applying lotion to the baby) and a beneficiary adjunct phrase (e.g., the mother is choosing lotion for the baby) using a set of computer-displayed written words. Results showed that the sentence production system experiences greater processing cost for producing adjuncts than verb arguments and this distinction is preserved even after brain-damage. In Experiment 1, healthy young speakers showed greater gaze durations and gaze shifts for adjuncts as compared to arguments. The same patterns were found in agrammatic and older speakers in Experiment 2. Interestingly, the three groups of speakers showed different time courses for encoding adjuncts: young speakers showed greater processing cost for adjuncts during speech, consistent with incremental production (Kempen & Hoenkamp, 1987). Older speakers showed this difference both before speech onset and during speech, while aphasic speakers appeared to preplan adjuncts before speech onset. These findings suggest that the degree of incrementality may be affected by speakers' linguistic capacity.

Entities:  

Year:  2011        PMID: 22319222      PMCID: PMC3272782          DOI: 10.1080/01690965.2010.496237

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Lang Cogn Process        ISSN: 0169-0965


  26 in total

1.  What the eyes say about speaking.

Authors:  Z M Griffin; K Bock
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2000-07

2.  Patterns of comprehension and production of nouns and verbs in agrammatism: implications for lexical organization.

Authors:  M Kim; C K Thompson
Journal:  Brain Lang       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 2.381

3.  Verbal integration: the interaction of participant roles and sentential argument structure.

Authors:  Kathleen Ahrens
Journal:  J Psycholinguist Res       Date:  2003-09

4.  Visual arguments.

Authors:  Julie E Boland
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2004-12-22

Review 5.  Observing the what and when of language production for different age groups by monitoring speakers' eye movements.

Authors:  Zenzi M Griffin; Daniel H Spieler
Journal:  Brain Lang       Date:  2005-11-10       Impact factor: 2.381

6.  Argument status and PP-attachment.

Authors:  Julie E Boland; Allison Blodgett
Journal:  J Psycholinguist Res       Date:  2006-09

7.  Viewing and naming objects: eye movements during noun phrase production.

Authors:  A S Meyer; A M Sleiderink; W J Levelt
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  1998-05

8.  Agrammatic aphasic production and comprehension of unaccusative verbs in sentence contexts.

Authors:  Miseon Lee; Cynthia K Thompson
Journal:  J Neurolinguistics       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 1.710

9.  Predicate-argument structure as a link between linguistic and nonlinguistic representations.

Authors:  E Canseco-Gonzalez; L P Shapiro; E B Zurif; E Baker
Journal:  Brain Lang       Date:  1990-10       Impact factor: 2.381

10.  Sentence processing and the mental representation of verbs.

Authors:  L P Shapiro; E Zurif; J Grimshaw
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  1987-12
View more
  16 in total

1.  Real-time production of unergative and unaccusative sentences in normal and agrammatic speakers: An eyetracking study.

Authors:  Jiyeon Lee; Cynthia K Thompson
Journal:  Aphasiology       Date:  2011       Impact factor: 2.773

2.  Grammatical Planning Units During Real-Time Sentence Production in Speakers With Agrammatic Aphasia and Healthy Speakers.

Authors:  Jiyeon Lee; Masaya Yoshida; Cynthia K Thompson
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 2.297

3.  Effects of Verb Overlap on Structural Priming in Dialogue: Implications for Syntactic Learning in Aphasia.

Authors:  Grace Man; Sarah Meehan; Nadine Martin; Holly Branigan; Jiyeon Lee
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2019-05-20       Impact factor: 2.297

4.  Grammatical Encoding and Learning in Agrammatic Aphasia: Evidence from Structural Priming.

Authors:  Soojin Cho-Reyes; Jennifer E Mack; Cynthia K Thompson
Journal:  J Mem Lang       Date:  2016-03-21       Impact factor: 3.059

5.  Aligning sentence structures in dialogue: evidence from aphasia.

Authors:  Jiyeon Lee; Grace Man; Victor Ferreira; Nicholas Gruberg
Journal:  Lang Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2019-02-12       Impact factor: 2.331

6.  Recovery of Online Sentence Processing in Aphasia: Eye Movement Changes Resulting From Treatment of Underlying Forms.

Authors:  Jennifer E Mack; Cynthia K Thompson
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2017-05-24       Impact factor: 2.297

7.  Tracking sentence comprehension: Test-retest reliability in people with aphasia and unimpaired adults.

Authors:  Jennifer E Mack; Andrew Zu-Sern Wei; Stephanie Gutierrez; Cynthia K Thompson
Journal:  J Neurolinguistics       Date:  2016-06-24       Impact factor: 1.710

8.  A novel eye-tracking method to assess attention allocation in individuals with and without aphasia using a dual-task paradigm.

Authors:  Sabine Heuer; Brooke Hallowell
Journal:  J Commun Disord       Date:  2015-04-11       Impact factor: 2.288

9.  Implicit and explicit learning in individuals with agrammatic aphasia.

Authors:  Julia Schuchard; Cynthia K Thompson
Journal:  J Psycholinguist Res       Date:  2014-06

10.  Phonological facilitation effects on naming latencies and viewing times during noun and verb naming in agrammatic and anomic aphasia.

Authors:  Jiyeon Lee; Cynthia K Thompson
Journal:  Aphasiology       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 2.773

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.