Dissociation of Inflectional and Derivational Morphology in Persian: Evidence From Aphasic Patients
AbstractIntroduction: It is believed that different components of our linguistic capabilities are not impaired to the same extent in aphasic patients. Moreover theoretical issues on aphasia can be researched on patients with different languages. Thus, we aimed to study the dissociation of inflectional and derivational morphology by assessing the performance of 8 Persian bilingual aphasic patients in producing Persian derivational and inflectional words.Material and Methods: To explore the capability of patients in using derivational and inflectional words, in addition to obtaining a brief history from all patients and an image of the impaired regions of the brain, two types of tasks, word-repetition and spontaneous speech tasks, were administered to them. The results were then statistically analyzed to see which part of their word-formation competence, derivational or inflectional processes, was impaired more seriously.Results: The results of word-repetition and spontaneous speech tests indicated that patients did better at derivational morphology. In addition, a quantitative analysis revealed a gap between scores for derivational and inflectional words, confirming the dissociation of the two types of the process as claimed by generative linguists.Conclusion: Based on the results patients had a better performance on derivational words as compared to inflectional ones confirming this linguistic theory that the two types of process take place in different sections, i.e. derivational process belongs to morphology whereas inflectional process is basically syntactic.
Chomsky N. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press; 1965.
Carstairs McCarthy A. Current morphology. Didcot: Taylor & Francis; 1992.
Chomsky, N. Remarks on nominalization. In: Jacobs RA, Rosenbaum PS, editors. Reading in English Transformational Grammar. Cambridge: Ginn and Company; 1970.
Miceli, G. (1988). Dissociation of inflectional and derivational morphology. Brain and Language. 35(1):24–65. doi: 10.1016/0093-934x(88)90100-9
Hamilton AC, Coslett HB. Impairment in writing, but not reading, morphologically complex words. Neuropsychologia. 2007; 45(7):1586–90. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.12.003
De Bleser R, Kauschke C. Acquisition and loss of nouns and verbs: Parallel or divergent patterns. Journal of Neurolinguistics. 2003; 16(2003): 213–29. doi: 10.1016/s0911-6044(03)00016-2
Halle M. Prolegomena to a theory of word formation. Linguistic Inquiry. 1973; 4(1):3-16.
Lapointe SG. A theory of grammatical agreement. Spokane: Garland Pub; 1980.
Selkirk EO. The syntax of words. Cambridge: MIT Press;1982.
Di Sciullo AM, Williams E. On the definition of word. Cambridge: MIT Press; 1987.
Anderson SR. Where’s morphology. Linguistic Inquiry. 1982; 13(4):571-612.
Kiparsky P. From cyclic phonology to lexical phonology. In: van der Hulst H, Smith N, editors. The structure of phonological representations (I). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter; 1982.
Kiparsky P. Word formation and the lexicon. Massachusetts: MIT Press; 1983.
Friedmann N, Grodzinsky Y. Tense and agreement in agrammatic production: Pruning the syntactic tree. Brain and Language. 1997; 56(3):397–425. doi: 10.1006/brln.1997.1795
Penke M. Morphology & language disorder. In Ball MJ, Perkins MR, Muller N, Howard S, editors. The handbook of clinical linguistics. New Jersey: Blackwell Publication; 2008.
Garret, M. Level of processing in sentence production. In Butterworth B, editor. Language production. New York: Academic Press; 1980.
Gheitury A, Sahraee AH, Hoseini M. Language acquisition in late critical period: A case report. Deafness & Education International. 2012; 14(3):122–35. doi: 10.1179/1557069x12y.0000000008