Afazide Adılların İşlemlenmesi Sırasında Gözlenen Niceleyici Yayma Hataları

Abstract

Afazi, tüm dil yetilerini etkileyerek bireyin güçlükle iletişim kurmasına neden olan edinilmiş bir dil bozukluğudur. Dilbilgisel yapıları işlemleme, afazide çoğunlukla güçtür. Adıllar, afazide sıklıkla etkilenen bir dilbilgisi yapısıdır ve afazili bireyler adılların kimi işaret edebileceğini yorumlamada güçlük yaşamaktadır. Bu çalışma, (i) Türkçe afazide niceleyicisi olan ve olmayan öznelerin bulunduğu tümcelerde adıl/adılsılları işlemlemenin (örneğin, “Her tavşan/Tavşan kendini/onu/maymunu gösteriyor.”) etkilenip etkilenmediğini ve (ii) adıl/adılsıl işlemleme sırasında oluşan niceleyici yayma hatalarını incelemeyi hedeflemektedir. Çalışmaya 12 afazili birey (iki kadın, Ort.Yaş= 59.7, SS = 14.55) ve benzer yaşlardaki 15 sağlıklı yetişkin katılmıştır. Katılımcılardan, farklı göndergesel ve adılsıl değişkenlerin kontrol edildiği (adıl, dönüşlü adıl ve G-anlatım) niceleyicili ve niceleyicisiz özne koşullarında 24 tümce dinlemeleri istenmiştir. Mevcut araştırma kapsamında, tümce sonu doğruluk-değer yargısı göreviyle birlikte bir resim-tümce eşleştirme paradigması kullanılmıştır. Bu doğrultuda, katılımcılara tümce bağlamlarıyla eşleşen ya da eşleşmeyen bir resim sunulmuş ve kendilerinden yanıt vermeleri istenmiştir. Katılımcıların doğruluk oranlarının ve yanıt sürelerinin kaydedilmesiyle elde edilen veriler, karmaşık etkili regresyon modelleri kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir. Analizler sonucunda elde edilen bulgular, afazili bireylerin kontrol grubuna göre daha zayıf ve yavaş performans gösterdiğini ve her iki grubun da niceleyicili koşulda niceleyicisiz olanlara göre daha yavaş yanıt verdiğini ortaya koymuştur. Afazili bireyler, özellikle niceleyicili tümcelerin bulunduğu uyumsuz koşulunda yorumlama hataları yapmış ve bu durum niceleyicisiz cümlelere kıyasla daha uzun yanıt sürelerine neden olmuştur. Sonuç olarak, bu çalışma Türkçe konuşan afazili bireylerde adılsıl/göndergesel çözünürlüğe bağlı olmayan niceleyici yayma hatalarının gözlemlendiğini göstermiştir. Mevcut araştırmada kullanılan tümcelerin işlemlenmesinde, afazili bireylerin niceleyici kapsamını yorumlama ve adılsıl/göndergesel öğeleri çözme şeklinde iki farklı bozukluk biçimi gösterdiği sonucuna varmak mümkündür.

Keywords

• Afazi
• niceleyici
• adıl
• niceleyici yayma
• bağlama

Quantifier Spreading Errors during Pronoun Processing in Aphasia

Abstract

Aphasia is an acquired language disorder that impacts all language abilities, rendering normal communication extremely difficult. Grammatical processing is often impaired in aphasia. Pronouns are often found to be effortful, with difficulty interpreting to whom a pronoun might refer. This study aimed to investigate whether interpreting pronouns and reflexives with and without potential quantified antecedents (i.e., “Every rabbit / Rabbit is pointing at itself/it/monkey”) are impaired in aphasia in Turkish, and whether quantifier spreading errors occur during pronoun/reflexive processing. A total of 12 people with aphasia (PWA) (two females, Mage= 59.7, SD = 14.55) and 15 age-matched healthy controls were recruited and asked to listen to 24 sentences in conditions of non-quantified and quantified subjects in which different referential and pronominal variables were controlled for (pronoun, reflexive, and R-expression). These participants were admitted to a picture-sentence matching paradigm with an end-of-trial truth-value judgment task. They were presented with a picture which either matched or mismatched the sentence contexts, and they were asked to respond. Their accuracy and response times were recorded and analyzed using mixed-effects regression models. The findings showed that the PWA performed more poorly and slowly than the control group and that both the groups performed more slowly responding to the quantified subjects than non-quantified ones. The PWA made interpretation errors in mismatch conditions, particularly for quantified subjects, evoking longer response times compared to non-quantified subjects. In conclusion, this study showed that quantifier spreading errors are observed in Turkish aphasia, which does not necessarily depend on pronominal/anaphoric resolution. It is suggested that the PWA’s sentence interpretation difficulty was underlined in two forms of separate impairments: interpreting quantifier scope and impairments in resolving pronominal/anaphoric elements.

Keywords

• Aphasia
• quantifier
• pronoun
• quantifier spreading
• binding

References

1. Akyüz, A., & Arslan, S. (2021). The Manifestation of Pronoun Use in Turkish Non-Fluent Aphasia [Poster Presentation]. Academy of Aphasia 58th Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, US (Online). google scholar
2. Arslan, S., Devers, C., & Ferreiro, S. M. (2021). Pronoun processing in post-stroke aphasia: A meta-analytic review of individual data. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 59, 101005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2021.101005 google scholar
3. Arslan, S., Selvi Balo, S., & Maviş, İ. (Submitted). Limitations during processing of variable reflexive anaphors and overt/null object pronouns in Turkish aphasia revealed by eye-tracking during listening studies google scholar
4. Avrutin, S. (2006). Weak syntax. In Y. Grodzinsky and K. Amunts (Eds.), Broca’s region (pp. 49-62). Oxford University Press. google scholar
5. Bastiaanse, R., Bamyaci, E., Hsu, C.-J., Lee, J., Yarbay-Duman, T., & Thompson, C. K. (2011). Time reference in agrammatic aphasia: A cross-linguistic study. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 24(6), 652-673. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2011.07.001 google scholar
6. Bates, D., Machler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1-48. google scholar
7. Blumstein, S. E., Goodglass, H., Statlender, S., & Biber, C. (1983). Comprehension strategies determining reference in aphasia: A study of reflexivization. Brain and Language, 18(1), 115-127. https://doi.org/10.1016/0093-934X(83)90010-X google scholar
8. Brooks, P. J., & Braine, M. D. (1996). What do children know about the universal quantifiers all and each? Cognition, 60(3), 235-268. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(96)00712-3 google scholar

9. Brooks, P. J., & Parshina, O. (2019). Quantifier Spreading. In C. Cummins and N. Katsos (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of experimental semantics and pragmatics (pp. 246). Oxford University Press. google scholar
10. Caramazza, A., & Zurif, E. B. (1976). Dissociation of algorithmic and heuristic processes in language comprehension: Evidence from aphasia. Brain and Language, 3(4), 572-582. https://doi.org/10.1016/0093-934X(76)90048-1 google scholar
11. Chien, Y. C., & Wexler, K. (1990). Children’s knowledge of locality conditions in binding as evidence for the modularity of syntax and pragmatics. Language Acquisition, 1(3), 225-295. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327817la0103_ google scholar
12. Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on binding and government. Foris. google scholar
13. Choy, J. J., & Thompson, C. K. (2010). Binding in agrammatic aphasia: Processing to comprehension. Aphasiology, 24(5), 551-579. https://doi.org/10.1080/02687030802634025 google scholar
14. Drozd, K. F., & Loosbroek, E. V. (2006). The effect of context on children’s interpretations of universally quantified sentences. In van Geenhoven, V. (Ed.), Semantics in Acquisition (pp. 115-140). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. google scholar
15. Edwards, S., & Varlokosta, S. (2007). Pronominal and anaphoric reference in agrammatism. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 20(6), 423-444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2007.03.003 google scholar
16. Enç, M. (1989). Pronouns, licensing, and binding. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 7(1), 51-92. google scholar
17. Friederici, A. D., Weissenborn, J., & Kail, M. (1991). Pronoun comprehension in aphasia: A comparison of three languages. Brain and Language, 41(2), 289-310. https://doi.org/10.1016/0093-934X(91)90157-V google scholar
18. Gracanin-Yuksek, M., Lago, S., Şafak, D. F., Demir, O., & Kırkıcı, B. (2017). The interaction of contextual and syntactic information in the processing of Turkish anaphors. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 46(6), 1397-1425. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-017-9502-2 google scholar
19. Grodzinsky, Y. (1991). There is an entity called agrammatic aphasia. Brain and Language, 41(4), 555-564. https://doi.org/10.1016/0093-934X(91)90174-Y google scholar
20. Grodzinsky, Y., & Reinhart, T. (1993). The innateness of binding and coreference. Linguistic Inquiry, 24(1), 69-101. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4178802 google scholar
21. Grodzinsky, Y., Wexler, K., Chien, Y.-C., Marakovitz, S., & Solomon, J. (1993). The breakdown of binding relations. Brain and Language, 45(3), 396-422. https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.1993.1052 google scholar
22. Gürel, A. (2002). First language attrition: The effects of second language. In Skarabela, B., Fish, S., &. Do, A. H.-J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 255-265). Cascadilla Press. google scholar
23. Haxby, J. V., Parasuraman, R., Lalonde, F., & Abboud, H. (1993). SuperLab: General-purpose Macintosh software for human experimental psychology and psychological testing. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 25(3), 400-405. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03204531 google scholar
24. Kang, H. K. (2001). Quantifier spreading: Linguistic and pragmatic considerations. Lingua, 111(8), 591-627. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(00)00042-5 google scholar
25. Knospe, G. M. (2019). Processing of pronouns and reflexives in Turkish-German bilinguals. [Doctoral dissertation, Universitat Potsdam]. google scholar
26. Kornfilt, J. (2001). Local and long-distance reflexives in Turkish. In P. Cole, G. Hermon, and C. T. J. Huang (Eds.), Long-distance reflexives (Vol. 33, pp. 197-226). Brill. google scholar
27. Kurada, H. Z., Baştuğ Dumbak, A., Yenice Bostancı, K., & Aydın, Ö. (Submitted). Binding processing in Turkish-German bilingual aphasia: A multiple case study. google scholar
28. Love, T., Nicol, J., Swinney, D., Hickok, G., & Zurif, E. (1998). The nature of aberrant understanding and processing of pro-forms by brain-damaged populations. Brain and Language, 65(1), 59-62. google scholar Maviş, İ., & Toğram, B. (2009). Afazi Dil Değerlendirme Testi (ADD) kullanım yönergesi. Detay Yayınları. google scholar
29. McNemar, Q. (1947). Note on the sampling error of the difference between correlated proportions or percentages. Psychometrika, 12(2), 153-157. google scholar
30. Menn, L., & Obler, L. K. (1990). Agrammatic Aphasia. John Benjamins. google scholar
31. Minai, U., Jincho, N., Yamane, N., & Mazuka, R. (2012). What hinders child semantic computation: Children’s universal quantification and the development of cognitive control. Journal of Child Language, 39(5), 919-956. doi:10.1017/S0305000911000316 google scholar
32. O’Grady, W., Suzuki, T., & Yoshinaga, N. (2010). Quantifier spreading: New evidence from Japanese. Language Learning and Development, 6(2), 116-125. https://doi.org/10.1080/15475440903352799 google scholar
33. Özbek, A., & Kahraman, B. (2016). Interpretations of Turkish reflexive pronouns kendi and kendisi. Mersin University Journal of Linguistics & Literature/Mersin Üniversitesi Dil ve Edebiyat Dergisi, 13(1). google scholar
34. Philip, W., & Avrutin, S. (1998). Quantification in agrammatic aphasia. InU. Sauerland and O. Percus (Eds.), The Interpretive Tract (pp. 63-72). MIT Press. google scholar
35. Philip, W. C. H. (1994). Event quantification in the acquisition of universal quantification. [Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst]. google scholar
36. Roca Hoogsteder, C. (2012). Quantifier Spreading in Patients with Expressive-Agrammatic and Receptive Aphasia. [Unpublished Masters’ Thesis, University of Utrecht]. google scholar
37. Ruigendijk, E., Vasic, N., & Avrutin, S. (2006). Reference assignment: Using language breakdown to choose between theoretical approaches. Brain and Language, 96(3), 302-317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2005.06.005 google scholar
38. Saddy, J. D. (1995). Variables and events in the syntax of agrammatic speech. Brain and Language, 50(2), 135-150. https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.1995.1043 google scholar
39. Sekerina, I. A., & Sauermann, A. (2015). Visual attention and quantifier-spreading in heritage Russian bilinguals. Second Language Research, 31(1), 75-104. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658314537292 google scholar
40. Sezer, E. (1979). On reflexivization in Turkish. Harvard Ukrainian Studies, 3, 748-759. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41035868 google scholar
41. Underhill, R. (1976). Turkish grammar. MIT Press. google scholar