Heeschen C
Cortex. 1980 Mar;16(1):5-19. doi: 10.1016/s0010-9452(80)80018-9.
By means of a sentence-picture matching task, 22 Broca-aphasics, 22 Wernicke-aphasics, 16 patients with damage to the right hemisphere and 16 neurologically normal subjects were tested for their ability to understand the actor-object-relation within a sentence. The 4 groups were approximately matched for sex, education, age and general severeness of disease. The stimulus sentences were constructed in such a way that the actor-object-relations were unambiguously clear by morphological means as e.g. case endings; thus, no error should be made by a subject operating on a purely algorithmic grammatical basis. One half of the sentences were irreversible, the other half reversible, i.e. the identification of the actor-object-relation was helped by a semantic cue in one half of the sentences, in the other half not. Crossed with this semantic factor was the syntatic factor "constituent order": one half of the sentences were presented in the normal order "actor-action-object", the other half in the topicalized form "object-action-actor" which is quite possible in German because of its free word order. Overall, the Broca-aphasics made less errors than the Wernicke-patients. The error pattern of the aphasics suggests that both aphasic groups remain responsive to semantic constraints as well as to constituent order: both groups made more errors in reversible than in irreversible sentences and both groups made more errors in topicalized than in normal sentences. There were no significant group differences in these two respects. The only group difference was that Broca-aphasics tended to neglect the syntactic aspect of constituent order if a semantic cue was given, while the Wernicke-aphasics continued to take the constituent order into account even in sentences where a semantic cue was present. In the light of the findings of the experiment, the hypothesis that Broca's aphasia is characterized by a supramodal blockade of syntax is disputed.
通过一个句子-图片匹配任务,对22名布罗卡失语症患者、22名韦尼克失语症患者、16名右脑损伤患者和16名神经功能正常的受试者进行测试,以考察他们理解句子中施事-受事关系的能力。这4组在性别、教育程度、年龄和疾病总体严重程度方面大致匹配。刺激句子的构建方式是,通过形态手段(如格词尾)使施事-受事关系明确无误;因此,仅基于算法语法操作的受试者不应出错。一半的句子是不可逆的,另一半是可逆的,即一半句子中施事-受事关系的识别有语义线索帮助,另一半则没有。与这个语义因素交叉的是句法因素“成分顺序”:一半句子以正常顺序“施事-动作-受事”呈现,另一半以主题化形式“受事-动作-施事”呈现,在德语中由于其自由语序,这种形式是完全可能的。总体而言,布罗卡失语症患者比韦尼克患者犯的错误更少。失语症患者的错误模式表明,两个失语症组对语义限制和成分顺序仍然有反应:两组在可逆句子中比在不可逆句子中犯的错误更多,并且两组在主题化句子中比在正常句子中犯的错误更多。在这两个方面没有显著的组间差异。唯一的组间差异是,如果有语义线索,布罗卡失语症患者往往会忽略成分顺序的句法方面,而韦尼克失语症患者即使在有语义线索的句子中也会继续考虑成分顺序。根据实验结果,布罗卡失语症以句法的超模式阻断为特征这一假设受到了质疑。