Event Abstract

Back to Event

Testing the “division of labor hypothesis” of aphasic verb production using big-data

Julia Thorne1 and Yasmeen Faroqi-Shah1*
  • 1 University of Maryland, United States

INTRODUCTION Difficulty in retrieving verbs is three times more common than a noun-specific impairment, irrespective of aphasia subtype or lesion location (Matzig et al., 2009). While explanations for verb deficits have included impairments in action representations, manipulability, instrumentality, and abstraction, the most prominent account is a syntactic weakness. Unlike nouns, the mental representation of verbs is known include syntactic constraints such as subcategorization frames. Hence, a syntactic impairment such as agrammatism would specifically impact verb representations (or the two could co-occur). An obvious challenge to the syntactic account is the lack of a one-to-one correspondence between verb deficits and agrammatism (Berndt et al., 1997). An alternative approach to testing the syntactic account of verb deficits is to consider sentence production ability as a continuous variable rather dichotomous (agrammatic vs non-agrammatic). Likewise, verbs differ in syntactic complexity – semantically “light” verbs (e.g., come, do) are syntactically more complex because they take a larger variety of complements, while semantically “heavy” verbs (e.g., receive, write) occur in a rather narrow range of sentence structures (Maouene et al., 2011). The association between verb complexity and syntactic impairment was elaborated by Gordon and Dell’s (2003) connectionist model, in which the retrieval of light versus heavy verbs differs from a “division of labor” between syntactic versus semantic representations that are activated during sentence planning. Consistent with this account, small group studies of agrammatic aphasia have been worse at light compared to heavy verb retrieval (e.g. Kim & Thompson, 2004). However, this pattern is not statistically distinct from non-agrammatic aphasic and neurologically healthy persons in other small group studies (Berndt et al., 1997, Breedin et al., 1998). The purpose of this study was to test the “division of labor” hypothesis of verb retrieval in aphasia by 1) comparing with healthy adults, 2) using continuous (rather than dichotomous) measures of syntactic ability, 3) examining predictors of light verb use, and 4) using a larger sample size. METHODS A shared database of discourse and test scores (AphasiaBank, MacWhinney et al., 2011) was used as the data source. Re-telling of the Cinderella story was analyzed for 164 individuals with aphasia (86 male, Mean age 61 years) and 166 demographically matched neurologically healthy individuals (76 male, Mean age 63.3 years). The proportion of light verbs (over total verbs) used was compared to narrative measures of syntactic ability (proportion of grammatical sentences and Developmental Sentence Score, DSS) and semantic ability (Idea Density, ID, and lexical diversity), as well as standard test scores of overall language and word retrieval. RESULTS & DISCUSSION Individuals with aphasia and healthy controls produced a similar proportion of light verbs (.38, U(298) = 13,129, p > 0.05). Linear regression analysis revealed three significant predictors of high light verb use in aphasia: greater syntactic complexity (high DSS score), lower semantic richness (low idea density) and lower Verb Naming Test scores (picture naming of heavy verbs, Cho-Reyes & Thompson, 2012). These findings support the division of labor in aphasia – persons with stronger syntactic abilities produce more light verbs and have lower semantic ability (Gordon & Dell, 2003).

Acknowledgements

This paper is part of the symposium: The rise of big-data in aphasiology: an opportunity for theory development

References

Berndt, R., Haendiges, A. N., Mitchum, C. C., & Sandson, J. (1997). Verb Retrieval in Aphasia. 2. Relationship to Sentence Processing. 56(1), 107-134.

Breedin, S. D., Saffran, E. M., & Schwartz, M. F. (1998). Semantic factors in verb retrieval: an effect of complexity. Brain and Language, 63(1), 1-31.

Cho-Reyes, S., & Thompson, C. K. (2012). Verb and sentence production and comprehension: Northwestern Assessment of Verbs and Sentences (NAVS). Aphasiology, 26(10), 1250-1277.

Gordon, J. K., & Dell, G. S. (2003). Learning to divide the labor: an account of deficits in light and heavy verb production. Cognitive Science, 27, 1, 1-40.

Macwhinney, B., Fromm, D., Forbes, M., & Holland, A. (2011). AphasiaBank: Methods for Studying Discourse. Aphasiology, 25(11), 1286-1307.

Maouene, J., Laakso, A., & Smith, L.B. (2011). Object associations of early-learned “light” and “heavy” English verbs. First Language, 31, 109-132.

Matzig, S., Druks, J., Masterson, J., & Vigliocco, G. (2009). Noun and verb differences in picture naming: Past studies and new evidence. Cortex, 45, 738-758.

Keywords: verbs, light verbs, agrammatism, Aphasia, Syntactic deficit, Idea density

Conference: Academy of Aphasia 53rd Annual Meeting, Tucson, United States, 18 Oct - 20 Oct, 2015.

Presentation Type: symposium

Topic: Student first author

Citation: Thorne J and Faroqi-Shah Y (2015). Testing the “division of labor hypothesis” of aphasic verb production using big-data. Front. Psychol. Conference Abstract: Academy of Aphasia 53rd Annual Meeting. doi: 10.3389/conf.fpsyg.2015.65.00054

Copyright: The abstracts in this collection have not been subject to any Frontiers peer review or checks, and are not endorsed by Frontiers. They are made available through the Frontiers publishing platform as a service to conference organizers and presenters.

The copyright in the individual abstracts is owned by the author of each abstract or his/her employer unless otherwise stated.

Each abstract, as well as the collection of abstracts, are published under a Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0 (attribution) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) and may thus be reproduced, translated, adapted and be the subject of derivative works provided the authors and Frontiers are attributed.

For Frontiers’ terms and conditions please see https://www.frontiersin.org/legal/terms-and-conditions.

Received: 01 May 2015; Published Online: 24 Sep 2015.

* Correspondence: Dr. Yasmeen Faroqi-Shah, University of Maryland, College Park, United States, yfshah@umd.edu