Content uploaded by Eva Soroli
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Eva Soroli on Apr 08, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
WELCOME ADDRESS
It is a great honour and privilege to hold the 28th International Congress of the International
Association of Logopedists and Phoniatrics (IALP), in Athens Greece.
IALP is the oldest organization representing persons involved with scientific, educational and
professional issues related to communication, language, voice, speech, hearing and swallowing
disorders and sciences in children and adults. IALP was founded in Vienna, Austria, by Dr Emil
Froeschels, in 1924. Our members are in more than 55 countries around the world. IALP holds its
scientific congresses every three years. It is the first time that the IALP Congress is coming to Athens,
in a vibrant city with great history, and many places of interest.
The Organizing Committee and the Panhellenic Association of Logopedics have chosen as the
philosophy for the Congress to be:
“where the sciences of communication meet the art and culture”.
This reflects our philosophy that the Congress has three dimensions: sciences, art and culture.
The dimension of sciences departs from our objective that the congress is a strong meeting point for
worldwide clinicians, professionals and scientists in communication, voice, speech, language,
audiology and swallowing sciences and disorders.
The dimensions of art and culture will be met through the cultural and social activities that are
planned including a visit to the Acropolis.
The aim is to host a meeting with a very high scientific quality while the participants will enjoy the
traditional Greek hospitality in the capital of Democracy.
Mara Behlau, PhD Ilias Papathanasiou, PhD
IALP President IALP Vice President
President of 28th IALP Congress Chair of Organizing Committee
of 28th IALP Congress
2
MESSAGE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE PANHELLENIC ASSOCIATION OF LOGOPEDISTS
Dear colleagues,
On behalf of the Governing Board and all the members of the Panhellenic Association of Logopedists
(PΑL) I welcome you to the 28th International Conference of IALP. It is our honor and great joy to
host you in Greece.
Despite the difficult situation at the global level, it is our pleasure to have such distinguished
scholars in the field of speech and language pathology come to participate in this conference. Your
presentations at the various sessions will offer great value to this event.
The mission and role of PΑL from its formative stages to its present form is the exchange of scientific
information and the sharing of research results through the on-going interaction of its practitioners.
In our country, the ultimate goal is to reach the highest level of professionalism in the field which we
are still striving to achieve.
We believe that the unique opportunity this conference presents will not only benefit the specialists
but ultimately the members of the public to be served by our profession.
We thank all those who are here to support and enrich this gathering, including members of the
audience. We are also grateful to the Governing Board of IALP, as well as, to members of the
scientific committee and the organizing committee of the Conference. To each of you we
acknowledge the tireless efforts that went into planning this special event.
Our best wishes to the success of the 28th IALP International Conference.
Konstandinos Rogas, President,
Panhellenic Association of Logopedists
3
PREFACE
It has been our honour to edit this volume which contains the scientific advances in the field of
communication and swallowing sciences and its disorders which will be presented at the 28th World
Congress of the International Association of Logopedics and Phoniatrics, in Athens Greece, 22-26
August 2010.
The Congress promises to provide outstanding main papers from world renowned scholars and
researchers in Neuroplasticity, Autism and The complexity of social/cultural dimension in
communication disorders. This volume contains contribution from more than 50 countries,
additional to major programmes provided by the international committees of the IALP on voice
disorders, motor speech disorders, dysphagia, hearing and hearing disorders, fluency, child
language, and many others. We hope that we have achieved our objective to present you the most
comprehensive and global view of research and issues challenging the professions, research and
science in our field today.
Athens, August 2010
Ilias Papathanasiou
Athena Fragouli
Angeliki Kotsopoulos
Nikos Litinas
4
CONTENTS
Alternative and Augmentative Communication
Title of paper ..………………………………………………………….Page
Aphasia
Title of paper ..………………………………………………………….Page
Audiology
Title of paper ..………………………………………………………….Page
Child Language
Title of paper ..………………………………………………………….Page
Education for speech and Language Pathology
Title of paper ..………………………………………………………….Page
Dysphagia
Title of paper ..………………………………………………………….Page
Education for Speech and Language Pathology
Title of paper ..………………………………………………………….Page
Fluency
Title of paper ..………………………………………………………….Page
Motor Speech Disorders
Title of paper ..………………………………………………………….Page
Multilingual Affairs
Title of paper ..………………………………………………………….Page
Phoniatrics
Title of paper ..………………………………………………………….Page
Voice
Title of paper ..………………………………………………………….Page
88
FP07.3
PRODUCTION AND COMPREHENSION OF SPATIAL LANGUAGE IN FRENCH
AGRAMMATIC AND ANOMIC APHASICS: CROSS-LINGUISTIC PERSPECTIVES
Efstathia Soroli1, Maya Hickmann1, Jean-Luc Nespoulous2, Thi Mai Tran3
1 Laboratory Formal Structures of Language,
French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) & University of Paris 8
2 Laboratory Jacques Lordat,
University of Toulouse Le Mirail & Institute of Brain Sciences of Toulouse
3 Laboratory Knowledge, Texts and Language,
French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) & University Lille North of France
Background
Although human spatial understanding is thought to be universal, languages present
striking differences in how they organize and encode spatial information. This diversity has
raised a number of questions in recent psycholinguistic research about the relationship between
language and cognition (Bowermann & Choi, 2003; Hickmann et al., 2009a). Talmy (2000)
proposes a typological distinction between satellite-framed vs. verb-framed languages (hereafter S-
and V-languages, respectively). S-languages lexicalize the Manner of motion in the verb and use
satellites to express Path information within a single compact structure. In contrast, V-languages
lexicalize Path information in the verb root, leaving Manner implicit or peripheral (e.g. She ran
across the street vs. Elle a traversé la rue [en courant] Lit. ‘She crossed the road running’). Some
languages are harder to classify into these two categories, such as serial-verb languages which
may be better classified as equipollent (e.g. Chinese, cf. Slobin, 2004) and languages that present a
parallel system in which both V- and S-framed structures may be available in equally frequent
contexts (e.g. Greek, cf. Talmy). Although some authors (e.g. Papafragou et al., 2006) consider
Greek to be a clear V-language, motion in Greek can be expressed either by lexicalising path
information in the verb leaving manner of motion implicit or peripheral as in French, (e.g. Mpike
trehontas. Lit. ‘[She] entered running’) or by expressing Manner and/or Path of motion in non-
bare verbs, often followed by additional spatial adverbials and/or locative/directional elements
similar to English satellites (e.g. Etrekse mesa [sto spiti] Lit. ‘[She] ran into [to the house]’). Such
striking differences and debates are of great relevance for the study of aphasic patients who
typically present dissociations between lexical and grammatical capacities.
Despite a few cross-linguistic studies of aphasia (Nespoulous, 1999; Menn & Obler, 1990),
little is known about universal vs. language-specific aspects of the linguistic deficits and
compensation strategies of aphasics. This question can not only contribute to the debates
concerning the relationship between language and cognition, but also opens new perspectives
for language rehabilitation. The present research investigates whether language-specific factors
can influence how two French aphasic speakers (agrammatic, anomic) vs. control speakers of
typologically different language (French, English, Greek) construct spatial representations about
motion events in two controlled tasks: production and comprehension.
Method
89
Participants
We tested a total of 44 subjects: 42 controls all right-handed, native speakers of French,
English and Greek (14 per language) and 2 French aphasics (1 male anomic right-handed and 1
male agrammatic left-handed). Inclusion criteria for all participants were (a) to be a native,
monolingual speaker of the above languages older than 18 years old, (b) to report no known
psychiatric disorder, (c) seeing or hearing impairment and (d) reading/oral language
difficulties. In addition aphasics had to be institutionally identified and diagnosed in term of
aphasia type through the Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination (BDAE:
Goodglass and Kaplan, 1972) on the French version (Mazaux and Orgogozo, 1982), conducted
by a speech therapist. All participants were given a questionnaire concerning their language
background. They all reported that they were monolingual and that they had been exposed to
only one language since birth. They were almost all late bilinguals (due to compulsory foreign
language teaching at school), but none had learnt a second language before age 10 and none had
lived in a foreign country for more than six months.
General procedure
Aphasic participants underwent the diagnostic battery (BDAE: French version) during a
first session to ensure that they met the inclusion criteria, then the experimental test in a second
separate session. Testing started with the production task and ended with the comprehension
task. For these tasks we constructed visual and auditory stimuli, implying voluntary motion
events, which varied along the two variables Manner and Path. Four different paths were
selected (up, down, into, out of, across). Half of the Manners involved the use of an instrument
(bicycle, scooter, rollers) and half did not (run, jump, crawl, and walk).
Hypotheses
French, English and Greek speakers were expected to show different performances as a
function of the typological properties of their language, specifically: 1) English speakers should
equally rely on Manner and on Path information, given the compact structures provided by their
language; 2) French speakers should focus on Path information which is lexicalised in the verb
and therefore more salient; 3) as for Greek speakers, we expected them to show parallel V- and
S-framed performance (as proposed by Talmy), rather than a clear V- pattern with a focus on
Path.
With respect to the French aphasic patients, the following predictions were made: 1) their
deficit should affect their production, but not necessarily their comprehension; 2) their deficit
should lead to particular difficulties and strategies, resulting in different productions between
the two patients (e.g. searching verbs for the anomic patient, lack of some relational devices such
as prepositions for the agrammatic patient).
Experiment 1: Production task
Materials
The production task consisted of 43 trials: 2 training, 8 controls, 5 distractors and 28
experimental trials. Experimental trials presented animated events (cartoons and videos)
implying voluntary motion events with several Manners and Paths. Control items solicited only
the expression of Manner. Distractors showing motion of inanimate objects were used in order
90
to vary the task and to eliminate possible repetitive strategies on the part of subjects.
Participants were asked to describe what was happening in the videos and cartoons.
Analysis
The analysis examined which of these two types of information were expressed (Path,
Manner or both), by what linguistic means (verbs, particles, prepositions, adverbials), how much
information was expressed (density), and the particular strategies used by aphasic participants.
We predicted that speakers should produce structures based on the features of their language.
Although speakers should express Path in all three languages, they should also express Manner
more frequently in English than in French. As for Greek, they should show variations between
the two co-existent systems performance if their language is a parallel system (Talmy, 2000) or
perform similarly to the French pattern if it is a clear V-framed system.
Results
In this task English speakers typically encoded Manner in verbs together with Path in
other devices within compact structures, whereas French speakers focused on Path and encoded
this information in verbs. Results concerning Greek mainly show the existence of parallel Verb-
and Satellite-framed systems in this language. Speakers used more Manner verbs in Greek than
in French, but fewer than in English, and they relied on more diverse types of Path markers
outside of the verb root as compared to either French or English.
Aphasics produced utterances of lower density in comparison to controls of the same
language and developed some compensation strategies related to the typological properties of
French together with their specific deficit, as illustrated below. In (1) the agrammatic uses a
noun (trottinette) and omits the verb (faire de la trottinette) in order to express Manner. As for the
preposition, a lexical approximation serves to compensate a grammaticalized element in this
mother tongue (juste istead of jusqu’à). In (2) he replaces the inflected form of the verb by its
infinitival form (se promener) without the reflexive pronoun (se).
(1) Agrammatic [item: enter - scooter]
Une fille trottinette [= fait de la trottinette] il euh, une … une fille euh, trottinette euh euh, la
porte … juste [= jusqu' à] la porte.
(‘A girl scooter hmm he… a girl hmm, scooter hmm hmm, the door, until the door.’)
(2) Agrammatic [item: enter – walk]
…euh, il euh promener.
(‘…hmm, he hmm walk.
’)
91
As for the anomic, in (3) he looks for the appropriate lexical item and gives the
approximate semantic form of drag. In (4) he omits the Path verb and focuses on Manner both in
the verb and in an adverbial???. In order to compensate his lexical deficit he produces a
periphrastic construction (marcher à pieds joints) for the verb sauter (“to jump”).
(3) Anomic [item: enter – push – slide/drag]
…le petit vieux trimballe une table.
(‘…the old man draggles the table.’)
(4) Anomic [item: exit - jump]
…il marche à pieds joints.
(‘…he wa
lks [at] feet joint.’)
Table 1 shows the types of spatial information that were expressed by French aphasics
and controls. Table 2 shows how this information was distributed in the utterances.
Voluntary Motion I (cartoons)
Experimental items
Controls Agrammatic Anomic
PM 37% 22% 22%
CP 1% 0% 0%
P 55% 67% 50%
M 3% 5,5% 17%
NR 4% 5,5% 11%
Control items
Controls Agrammatic Anomic
PM 20,5% 0% 0%
P 3% 12,5% 0%
M 77% 87,5% 100%
NR 0% 0% 0%
Voluntary motion II (videos)
Controls Agrammatic Anomic
PM 54% 30% 40%
P 39% 30% 40%
M 6% 40% 20%
NR 1% 0% 0%
P = Path, C = Cause, M= agents’ manner of motion, NR = no response
Table 1. Focus
Voluntary Motion I (cartoons)
92
Controls Agrammatic Anomic
Verb Other Verb Other Verb Other
PM 24% 2% 22% 0% 22% 0%
CP 0,5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
P 68,5% 41% 67% 6% 50% 11%
M 5% 11% 5,5% 0% 17% 6%
NR 1% 46% 5,5% 94% 11% 83%
Voluntary motion II (videos)
Controls Agrammatic Anomic
Verb Other Verb Other Verb Other
PM 26% 14% 20% 0% 20% 0%
P 59% 32% 30% 10% 50% 20%
M 14% 16% 50% 0% 30% 30%
NR 1% 37% 0% 90% 0% 50%
Table 2. Locus
Experiment 2: Comprehension task
Materials
The comprehension task was meant to ensure that aphasics had no comprehension
deficit. It consisted in 75 triads (one sentence-two choices): 1 training, 8 distractors and 66
experimental trials. Experimental trials involved a sentence presented auditorily that described a
motion event while two videos were shown on a PC screen simultaneously. Participants were
asked to choose the video that best corresponded to the sentence and to press a key to indicate
their choice. Accuracy and reaction times were measured.
Results
Controls reached ceiling performance in comprehension. Similarly, aphasics had no
difficulty in correctly interpreting target sentences, despite their slower performance in
comparison to controls as shown in Table 3.
Participants Accuracy rates Reaction Times (msc)
French Controls 96% 1793
Agrammatic 92% 2203
Anomic 92% 3074
Table 3. Accuracy and Reaction times
Conclusion
In conclusion typological properties of languages must be taken into account to improve
rehabilitation in aphasia, since this factor can affect performance in various ways. Language
properties invite certain ways of expressing events and generate strategies that do not only vary
as a function of specific deficits.
Further research in progress compares these data with the performance of speakers in
other languages, as well as with that of monolingual and bilingual aphasics, providing new
93
perspectives for the study of the relation between language and cognition and for future
rehabilitation strategies.
References
Bowerman, M. and Choi, S. (2003). Space under construction: Language specific spatial categorization in
first language acquisition. In D. Gentner and S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.) Language in Mind: Advances
in the study of Language and Cognition, 387-428. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Goodglass, H. & Kaplan, E. (1972). Assessment of Aphasia and Related Disorders. Philadelphia: Lea and
Febinger.
Hickmann, M., Tarrane, P. & Bonnet, Ph. (2009). Motion in first language acquisition: manner and path in
French and in English. Journal of Child Language, Vol 36, Issue 04, 705-741.
Mazaux J.-M., Orgogozo J.-M. (1982), Échelle d’évaluation de l’aphasie, d’après : Boston Diagnostic Aphasia
Examination (Goodglass et Kaplan, 1972), Issy les Moulineaux: E.A.P. éditions cientifiques et
psychologiques.
Menn, L. & Obler L.K. (1990). Language data and theories of agrammatism, in : L. Menn & L.K. Obler, (Eds.),
Agrammatic Aphasia. A cross language narrative sourcebook, Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing
Company.
Nespoulous, J-L. (1999). Universal vs language-specific constraints in agrammatic aphasia, in C. Fuchs &
S. Robert (eds.) Language diversity and cognitive representations, John Benjamins, 195-207.
Papafragou, A., Massey, C. & Gleitman, L. (2006). When English proposes what Greek presupposes: The
cross-linguistic encoding of motion events. Cognition, 98, B75-87.
Slobin, D. (2004). The many ways to search for a frog: linguistic typology & the expression of motion
events. In S. Strömqvist & L. Verhoeven (Eds.) Relating Events in Narrative, Vol 2, 219-257.
Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics. Volume 1: Concept structuring systems. Volume 2: Typology and
process in concept structuring. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
