Hofmann E, Cohen R
Arch Psychiatr Nervenkr (1970). 1979 Apr 12;226(4):325-40. doi: 10.1007/BF00342245.
In the current literature on aphasia, two explanations of paraphasic errors are suggested: one is based on the idea of conscious verbal substitutions, and the other on that of uncontrolled faults in production. The purpose of this study was to relate both explanations to a) the usual classification of verbal and phonemic paraphasias, b) the different types of aphasia, and c) the severity of the aphasic disturbance. In free reproductions of 19 fluent aphasics A(F) and 21 nonfluent aphasics A(NF), the immediate verbal context of paraphasias was examined in relation to a) the nature and severity of the paraphasic errors and b) the severity of the aphasia. The A(NF) group made significantly more hesitations before both verbal and phenemic paraphasias. There was no significant difference between the two groups in control after phonemic paraphasias, but the A(NF) showed a significantly higher rate of control incidents after verbal paraphasias. Thus the two explanations of paraphasia may correspond to different kinds of paraphasic behavior, which are symptomatic of two varieties of aphasia, fluent and nonfluent.
在当前关于失语症的文献中,对言语错乱错误提出了两种解释:一种基于有意识的言语替换概念,另一种基于言语产生中不受控制的错误概念。本研究的目的是将这两种解释与以下方面联系起来:a) 言语和音素性言语错乱的通常分类;b) 不同类型的失语症;c) 失语症障碍的严重程度。在对19名流利型失语症患者A(F)和21名非流利型失语症患者A(NF)的自由复述中,研究了言语错乱的即时言语语境与以下方面的关系:a) 言语错乱错误的性质和严重程度;b) 失语症的严重程度。A(NF)组在言语和音素性言语错乱之前出现的犹豫明显更多。两组在音素性言语错乱后的控制方面没有显著差异,但A(NF)组在言语性言语错乱后的控制事件发生率明显更高。因此,对言语错乱的两种解释可能对应于不同类型的言语错乱行为,它们是流利型和非流利型两种失语症的症状表现。