Language and Spatial Cognition in French and in English: evidence

Encoding motion events in aphasia:
crosslinguistic perspectives in monolingual and bilingual agrammatism
Efstathia SOROLI¹*, Maya HICKMANN¹, Jean-Luc NESPOULOUS², Halima SAHRAOUI², Thi Mai TRAN³
¹Laboratoire Structures Formelles du Langage, CNRS & Université Paris 8, France
²Laboratoire Jacques Lordat, Université Toulouse Le Mirail, France
³Laboratoire STL, CNRS & Université Lille Nord de France, France
* contact e-mail address: [email protected]
1. Background
Stimuli
Linguistic diversity and implications for aphasia
Languages show striking differences in how they represent motion events. In particular, they either lexicalize
or grammaticalize spatial information, thereby highlighting some types of information more than others
(Talmys’ typology) [1]:
- Satellite-framed languages: He is running up, down, across, into, away … (lexicalization of Manner).
- Verb-framed languages: Il monte, descend, traverse, entre, part ... en courant (lexicalization of Path).
Such properties constrain how speakers encode motion in discourse [2;3;4], thereby raising new questions
concerning the relationship between language and cognition. They are also of great relevance for the study of
aphasia in a cross-linguistic perspective, particularly in comparison to monolingual or bilingual aphasics who
show dissociations between lexical/grammatical knowledge and who possess one or two languages with
typologically divergent patterns. Despite a few available cross-linguistic studies of aphasia [5;6] little is still
known about universal vs. language-specific aspects of the linguistic deficits and compensation strategies
displayed by people with aphasia. Recent studies deal with this question which is of particular interest for our
understanding of language pathology and for the development of tools towards language rehabilitation [7;8].
The aim of the study
The present study examines the extent to which the properties of two typologically different languages (French
and English) constrain how controls vs. monolingual and bilingual aphasic speakers with agrammatism perform
a production task involving visual stimuli about voluntary motion events (animated cartoons).
Questions and implications for language pathology:
- Controls should follow the typological properties of their language (lexicalization/grammaticalization patterns)
- Given their dissociations, do agrammatic patients, follow language-specific patterns?
- Or do these patients develop other compensatory strategies and of what nature?
2. Method
Figure 1. Exemple of ‘across’ cartoon stimuli
Figure 2. Exemple of ‘up’ cartoon stimuli
Typical utterances on the production task:
1. English Controls: There’s a cat climbing up the telephone pole.
Verb=M Other=P
2. French Controls: C’est un garçon qui traverse la rivière en nageant.
Verb=P
Other=M
(‘It’s a boy that crosses the river by swimming’)
3. Agrammatic1: Le chat court sur le poteau électrique
Verb=M
('The cat runs on the electric pole')
4. Agrammatic2: (Le garçon) il va venir... prendre gauche
Verb=P
Other=P (Omission of the preposition)
(‘(The boy) he will come... take left’)
5. Bilingual Agrammatic 1 (FR): Il nage et... va de l'autre côté
Verb=M
('He swims and... goes on the other side')
6. Bilingual Agrammatic 2 (FR): Un chat maladroit euh... monter poteau
Verb=P (Verb in the infinitive form)
('a cat clumsy uhm... ascend pole')
7. Bilingual Agrammatic 3 (FR): Le chat s'est grimpé au poteau
Verb=P+M (Idiosyncratic morphology-Auxiliary error)
('The cat is climbed-up to the-pole')
Participants
- 40 French and English monolingual adult speakers (20 per language)
- 2 French monolingual aphasics with agrammatism
- 3 French-English early bilingual aphasics with agrammatism
Background measures:
- Questionnaire: participants’ linguistic background (exposure to other languages)
- Diagnostic Battery: BDAE, DO80 and MT86 (for aphasic patients)
8. Bilingual Agrammatic 1 (EN): A cat, it... climb
Verb=M (Idiosyncratic morphology-Tense error)
9. Bilingual Agrammatic 2 (EN):A boy... across river
Other=P (Omission of the main verb-Path particle alone)
10. Bilingual Agrammatic 3 (EN): He dived in, and... swimming
Verb=M (Omission of the tensed auxiliary)
Material
Visual stimuli implying voluntary motion events with varied Paths (P) and Manners (M):
- Paths: up, down, across
- Manners : run, jump, climb, crawl, walk, ride a bicycle
- An additional set of control items maximized attention to Manner in order to elicit Manner verbs
Task
- Production : Stimuli were interspersed in a mixed list of items and presented in a pseudo-randomized order
(e.g. Figure 1, 2). After they saw each stimulus, participants were asked to describe what had happened.
3. Results
Controls:
Subjects’ linguistic performance differed in French vs. English in three ways:
- Focus: English speakers expressed both Manner and Path (MP), French speakers mostly Path (P).
- Density: As a result, utterance density was higher in English than in French (two semantic components
systematically expressed).
- Locus in Verbs vs. Other devices: In English compact structures systematically encoded Manner in verbs
and Path in other devices. In contrast, French showed more variability. Speakers expressed mostly Path both in
verbs and in other devices, but also some Path+Manner in the verb but less Manner in either locus and/or no
other devices in the verbal network (Figure 3, see examples 1 and 2).
Aphasics:
- Monolinguals: Despite some inter-subject variability, French agrammatics followed the pattern of their
language. They mostly produced utterances of low density (one component expressed), with less Path
information in both loci and no semantic information in the verbal network.
Figure 3. Information expressed in verbs vs. other devices (P=Path, M=Manner)
by French and English Controls
- Furthermore, these monolingual aphasics produced no Manner at all in other devices and clearly less Path
information in the verb as compared to both controls and bilingual aphasics (Figure 4). French agrammatics
produced little Path in other devices as compared to controls. Note also that monolinguals sometimes omitted
prepositions and verbal morphology from their utterances (see examples 3 and 4).
- Bilinguals: In French descriptions bilingual aphasics overall followed the typical lexicalization pattern of
French, expressing Path in the verb and little information in the periphery. However, in comparison to French
controls, they expressed even less Path outside of the verb and generally no semantic information in this locus.
- In their English descriptions the same participants produced fewer motion verbs, omitting verbal morphology
when they did use them (e.g. tensed auxiliaries), and/or expressed less Manner in their verbs as well as less
Path in other devices than English controls. However, they nonetheless followed the typical lexicalization
pattern of English, with Manner mostly expressed in the verbs and Path in satellites (Figure 5, examples 5-10).
Figure 4. Information expressed in verbs vs. other devices
in French Monolingual Agrammatism
4. Conclusion
Typological properties of languages clearly affect how all groups of speakers expressed motion events.
- The findings for both control groups are in line with previous studies showing typological constraints on
production.
- Agrammatic aphasic speakers, whether monolingual or bilingual, follow a common strategy in French focusing
on lexicalized components (Path in verb roots), omitting most grammatical elements, and expressing no other
information in other devices.
- When speaking English, bilingual aphasics show a preference for the dominant English pattern but also
compensate their deficit by using Path particles alone (down/up), devices marking goals (top), or manner verbs
alone in which they omit grammatical elements (running/swimming).
References
[1] Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics. Volume 1: Concept structuring systems. Volume 2: Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
[2] Hickmann, M., Tarrane, P. & Bonnet, Ph. (2009). Motion in first language acquisition: manner and path in French and in English. Journal of Child Language, Vol36, Issue4, 705-741.
[3] Slobin, D. (2004). The many ways to search for a frog: linguistic typology & the expression of motion events. In S. Strömqvist & L. Verhoeven (Eds.) Relating Events in Narrative, Vol
2, 219-257. Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
[4] Slobin, D.I. (2006). What makes manner of motion salient? Exploration in linguistic typology discourse and cognition. In: M. Hickmann and S. Robert (eds.), Linguistic Systems and
Cognitive Categories. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
[5] Nespoulous, J-L. (1999). Universal vs language-specific constraints in agrammatic aphasia, in C. Fuchs & S. Robert (eds.) Language diversity and cognitive representations, John
Benjamins, 195-207.
[6] Menn, L. & Obler L.K. (1990). Language data and theories of agrammatism, in : L. Menn & L.K. Obler, (Eds.), Agrammatic Aphasia. A cross language narrative sourcebook,
Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
[7] Soroli E., Hickmann M., Tran T.M., Nespoulous J.-L., Boudre H. (2010a). Expression du mouvement et pathologie du langage: Perspective typologique en aphasie in Neveu F., Muni
Toke V., Durand J., Klinger T., Mondada L. & Prévost S. (eds.), Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française - CMLF 2010, Paris, Institut de Linguistique française, 1575-1590.
th
[8] Soroli, E., Hickmann, M., Nespoulous, J-L., Tran T. M. (2010b). Language and space in aphasia: the contribution of eye-movement data. . Paper presented at the 14 International
Aphasia Rehabilitation Conference. Montreal, Canada, June 27-29, 2010.
Figure 5. Information expressed in verbs vs. other devices in Bilingual Agrammatism
48th Academy of Aphasia’s Annual Meeting, October 24-26, 2010, Athens, Greece