Giulia Bencini

Telerehabilitation in Poststroke Anomia

Anomia, a word-finding difficulty, is a frequent consequence of poststroke linguistic disturbance, associated with fluent and nonfluent aphasia that needs long-term specific and intensive speech rehabilitation. The present study explored the feasibility of telerehabilitation as compared to a conventional face-to-face treatment of naming, in patients with poststroke anomia. Five aphasic chronic patients participated in this study characterized by: strictly controlled crossover design; well-balanced lists of words in picture-naming tasks where progressive phonological cues were provided; same kind of the treatment in the two ways of administration. ANOVA was used to compare naming accuracy in the two types of treatment, at three time points: baseline, after treatment, and followup. The results revealed no main effect of treatment type (P = 0.844) indicating that face-to-face and tele-treatment yielded comparable results. Moreover, there was a significant main effect of time (P = 0.0004) due to a better performance immediately after treatment and in the followup when comparing them to baseline. These preliminary results show the feasibility of teletreatment applied to lexical deficits in chronic stroke patients, extending previous work on telerehabilitation and opening new vistas for future studies on teletreatment of language functions.

When two and too don't go together: A selective phonological deficit sparing number words

We report the case of an Italian speaker (GBC) with classical Wernickes aphasia syndrome following a vascular lesion in the left posterior middle temporal region. GBC exhibited a selective phonological deficit in spoken language production (repetition and reading) which affected all word classes irrespective of grammatical class, frequency, and length. GBCs production of number words, in contrast, was error free. The specific pattern of phonological errors on non-number words allows us to attribute the locus of impairment at the level of phonological form retrieval of a correctly selected lexical entry. These data support the claim that number words are represented and processed differently from other word categories in language production.

Speech Errors as a Window on Language and Thought: A Cognitive Science Perspective

We are so used to speaking in our native language that we take this ability for granted. We think that speaking is easy and thinking is hard. From the perspective of cognitive science, this view is wrong. Utterances are complex things, and generating them is an act of linguistic creativity, in the face of the computational complexity of the task. On occasion, utterance generation goes awry and the speaker’s output is different from the planned utterance, such as a speaker who says “Fancy getting your model renosed!” when “fancy getting your nose remodeled” was intended. With some notable exceptions (e.g. Fromkin 1971) linguists have not taken speech error data to be informative about speakers’ linguistic knowledge or mental grammars. The paper strives to put language production errors back onto the linguistic data map. If errors involve units such as phonemes, syllables, morphemes and phrases, which may be exchanged, moved around or stranded during spoken production, this shows that they are both representational and processing units. If similar units are converged upon via multiple methods (e.g. native speaker judgments, language corpora, speech error corpora, psycholinguistic experiments) those units have stronger empirical support. All other things being equal, theories of language that can account for both representation and processing are to be preferred.

Subject drop in Italian Alzheimer’s disease

How does a native speaker’s knowledge of her language’s syntax interact with processing factors such as sentence length and complexity? Conversely, how do general cognitive constraints interact with the grammatical properties of individual languages? We explore these questions by focusing on the parameter that licenses null subjects in languages like Italian and prohibits them in languages like English (Chomsky, 1981). The contrast between these two types of languages is illustrated in (1). Without an overt third person subject (e.g., she), the English sentence in 1a is ungrammatical, whereas the corresponding Italian sentence is fully grammatical. Languages like Italian are often referred to as null subject languages. In these languages, the null subject is pro (pronounced ‘‘little pro’’) and is assumed to be a phonologically silent, but syntactically present, element with pronominal properties.