Joanette Y, Ansaldo A I
Centre de recherche, Institut universitaire de gériatrie de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Brain Lang. 1999 Jul;68(3):529-34. doi: 10.1006/brln.1999.2126.
Recent advances in the field of communication sciences have led to the description of acquired communication disorders affecting pragmatic skills in patients with brain damage. The present article discusses the impact of such findings on the clinical concept of aphasia. Through reference to a number of articles contained in this Special Issue, it must be reiterated that pragmatic and other linguistic components of communication abilites are two sides of a same coin-that of language-and intimately interrelated. It is also argued that the difference between traditional (e.g., syntax) and pragmatic components of language cannot be explained in simple terms such as the former being subserved only by linguistic processes and the latter by other cognitive processes. Pragmatic components are thus to be considered as part of language. The evolution of the concept of language has a direct impact on the clinical concept of aphasia. Indeed, if aphasia corresponds to an acquired impairment of language, then pragmatic impairments must be considered part of aphasia. The inclusion of pragmatic impairments in the concept of aphasia does not hold only when they occur within the frame of classic types of aphasia, but also when they occur in isolation. Consequently, a new type of aphasia-pragmatic aphasia-should be considered and defined in order to describe the clinical condition of those individuals suffering from acquired pragmatic disorders as those reported among right-hemisphere-damaged right-handers. It is concluded that the recent evolution around the concept of language should be followed by an evolution of the concept of aphasia per se.
通信科学领域的最新进展促使人们对后天性通信障碍进行了描述,这些障碍会影响脑损伤患者的语用技能。本文讨论了这些研究结果对失语症临床概念的影响。通过参考本期特刊中的多篇文章,必须重申,通信能力的语用和其他语言成分是同一枚硬币的两面——即语言——并且紧密相关。还有人认为,语言的传统(如句法)成分和语用成分之间的差异不能简单地解释为前者仅由语言过程支持,而后者由其他认知过程支持。因此,语用成分应被视为语言的一部分。语言概念的演变对失语症的临床概念有直接影响。事实上,如果失语症对应于后天性语言障碍,那么语用障碍就必须被视为失语症的一部分。语用障碍纳入失语症概念不仅适用于它们出现在经典失语症类型框架内的情况,也适用于它们单独出现的情况。因此,应该考虑并定义一种新型失语症——语用性失语症——以便描述那些患有后天性语用障碍的个体的临床状况,就像在右半球受损的右利手患者中所报道的那样。结论是,围绕语言概念的最新演变应该伴随着失语症概念本身的演变。