Benedet M J, Christiansen J A, Goodglass H
Universidad Cumplutense de Madrid, Spain.
Cortex. 1998 Jun;34(3):309-36. doi: 10.1016/s0010-9452(08)70758-5.
To account for cross-linguistic differences in agrammatism, Bates and her colleagues have employed the Competition Model, proposing that the cue validity and cue costs of a grammatical morpheme in a particular language will directly affect how agrammatism is manifested. Using Goodglass et al.'s (1993) Morphosyntax Battery in English and a translated version in Spanish, we analyzed the use of equivalent grammatical structures in production and comprehension by agrammatic speakers of the two languages. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests revealed that the relative order of difficulty in both production and comprehension of various grammatical morphemes was the same for both Spanish- and English-speaking agrammatic patients, with two exceptions (1) the Spanish-speaking agrammatics were relatively better at producing subject-verb agreement, and (2) the Spanish speakers were significantly worse at comprehending both active and passive voice sentences. The Competition Model can explain the performance differences regarding subject-verb agreement and comprehension of active voice sentences, but it cannot account for the differences seen in comprehending passive voice sentences.
为了解释语法缺失在跨语言方面的差异，贝茨及其同事采用了竞争模型，提出特定语言中语法语素的线索有效性和线索成本将直接影响语法缺失的表现形式。我们使用古德格拉斯等人（1993年）的英语形态句法测试组及西班牙语翻译版本，分析了这两种语言的语法缺失者在产出和理解中对等语法结构的使用情况。威尔科克森符号秩检验显示，西班牙语和英语的语法缺失患者在各种语法语素的产出和理解方面的相对难度顺序是相同的，但有两个例外：（1）说西班牙语的语法缺失者在主谓一致产出方面相对较好；（2）说西班牙语的人在理解主动语态和被动语态句子方面明显较差。竞争模型可以解释主谓一致和主动语态句子理解方面的表现差异，但无法解释在被动语态句子理解中出现的差异。
