An investigation of metalinguistic judgments in Broca's aphasia

This study investigated the ability of people with Broca's aphasia to make metalinguistic judgments concerning what was or was not a violation of linguistic rule usage within both the semantic and syntactic domains. A total of 20 white agrammatic and normal speakers, ages 33 to 78, were asked to judge, revise, and explain a corpus of sentences on a set of formal (created by the examiner) and informal (subject's spontaneous errors) tasks. The results of this study showed that the control and mild aphasic subjects were able to judge, revise, and explain sentences significantly better than the moderate aphasic subjects across all formal tasks for absolute and relative values. All subjects were able to judge, revise, and explain semantically anomalous utterances significantly better than ungrammatical utterances on the formal tasks for absolute values. Analysis of relative scores, however, revealed no significant utterance type effect.

Name thesis:degree_name

Ph.D.

Level thesis:degree_level

Dissertation

Discipline thesis:degree_discipline

Communication

Grantor

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Year dc:date

2011

Author dc:creator

• Thompson-Smith, Tina

Contributors dc:contributor

• Simpson, Robert K.

• Speech Communication

Statement dc:rights

• Copyright 1989 Thompson-Smith, Tina

Language dc:language

eng

Identifier

AAI8916314
(UMI)AAI8916314

OAI identifier oai:identifier

oai:www.ideals.illinois.edu:2142/22363