Search

How do aphasics deal with the rich inflectional marking available in agglutinative languages like Hungarian? For the Hungarian noun alone, aphasics have to deal with over 15 basic case markings and dozens of possible combinations of these basic markings. Using the picture description task of MacWhinney and Bates (1978), this study examined the use of inflectional markings in nine Broca's and five Wernicke's aphasic speakers of Hungarian. The analysis focused on subject, direct object, indirect object, and locative nominal arguments. Compared to normals, both groups had a much higher rate of omission of all argument types. Subject ellipsis was particularly strong, as it is in normal Hungarian. There was a tendency for Broca's to omit the indirect object and for Wernicke's to omit the direct object. Across argument types, Wernicke's had a much higher level of pronoun usage than did Broca's. Broca's also showed a very high level of article omission. Compared to similar data reported by Slobin (this issue) for Turkish, the Hungarian aphasics showed an elevated level of omission of case markings. Addition errors were quite rare, but there were 14 substitutions of one case marking for another. These errors all involved the substitution of some close semantic competitor. There were no errors in the basic rules for vowel harmony or morpheme order. Overall the results paint a picture of a group of individuals whose grammatical abilities are damaged and noisy, but still largely functional. Neither the view of Broca's as agrammatic nor the view of Wernicke's as paragrammatic was strongly supported.

Studies of aphasia in Indo-European languages point to a selective vulnerability of morphological case marking in sentence comprehension. However, in case-marking languages such as German and Serbo-Croatian, the use of case marking to express formal grammatical gender diminishes the clarity of grammatical role marking. In Hungarian and Turkish, there are simple and reliable markings for the direct object. These markings are not linked to grammatical gender. Compared to Hungarian, the Turkish accusative marking is somewhat lower in availability, but somewhat higher in detectability. The processing of these cues by aphasics was tested using the design of MacWhinney, Pléh, and Bates (1985. Cognitive Psychology, 17, 178-209). Simple sentences with two nouns and one transitive verb were read to Broca's and Wernicke's aphasics, anomics, and control subjects in both Turkey and Hungary. The main effect of case marking was extremely strong. However, this was not true for all groups. The aphasics used the case cue far less than the normals, with the Hungarian Wernicke's group showing the greatest loss. Word order variations were largely ignored in all groups whenever the case-marking cue was present. When case marking was absent, Turkish subjects had a clear SOV interpretation for NNV sentences and Hungarians had a clear SVO interpretation for NVN sentences, in accord with basic patterns in their languages. When there was a contrast between the animacy of the two nouns, subjects choose the animate nouns significantly more often. The effect of animacy was particularly strong in Turkish, in accord with basic facts of Turkish grammar. In Hungarian, VNN sentences without case marking were interpreted as VOS when the first noun was inanimate. In Turkish, VNN sentences without case marking were often interpreted as VSO. In general, the aphasic subjects showed a clear preservation of virtually all aspects of their native languages, albeit in a much noisier form. Despite the high reliability of the case-marking cue, it was damaged more than the word order cue in English subjects. The near-chance processing of the case cue by the Wernicke's aphasics in Hungarian can probably be attributed to the relatively greater difficulty involved in detecting the Hungarian accusative suffix.