Miceli G, Silveri M C, Romani C, Caramazza A
Istituto di Neurologia, Universitá Cattolica, Roma, Italia.
Brain Lang. 1989 Apr;36(3):447-92. doi: 10.1016/0093-934x(89)90079-5.
We describe the patterns of omissions (and substitutions) of freestanding grammatical morphemes and the patterns of substitutions of bound grammatical morphemes in 20 so-called agrammatic patients. Extreme variation was observed in the patterns of omissions and substitutions of grammatical morphemes, both in terms of the distribution of errors for different grammatical morphemes as well as in terms of the distribution of omissions versus substitutions. Results are discussed in the context of current debates concerning the possibility of a theoretically motivated distinction between the clinical categories of agrammatism and paragrammatism and, more generally, concerning the theoretical usefulness of any clinical category. The conclusion is reached that the observed heterogeneity in the production of grammatical morphemes among putatively agrammatic patients renders the clinical category of agrammatism, and by extension all other clinical categories from the classical classification scheme (e.g., Broca's aphasia, Wernicke's aphasia, and so forth) to more recent classificatory attempts (e.g., surface dyslexia, deep dysgraphia, and so forth), theoretically useless.
我们描述了20名所谓的语法缺失患者中独立语法语素的省略（和替换）模式以及粘着语法语素的替换模式。在语法语素的省略和替换模式方面，无论是不同语法语素的错误分布，还是省略与替换的分布，都观察到了极大的差异。在当前关于语法缺失和准语法缺失这两种临床类别之间是否能从理论上进行有动机区分的争论背景下，以及更广泛地说，在关于任何临床类别的理论有用性的争论背景下，对结果进行了讨论。得出的结论是，在假定的语法缺失患者中观察到的语法语素产生的异质性使得语法缺失这一临床类别，进而使经典分类方案中的所有其他临床类别（如布罗卡失语症、韦尼克失语症等）以及最近的分类尝试（如表层失读症、深层失写症等）在理论上变得无用。
