Referential vs. modalizing Day 26

1
Referential vs. modalizingDay 26
Brain Language LING 411/412/489 NSCI
411/611/489/689 Harry Howard Tulane University
2
Quiz 8
3
Q8 answers

• 1. Discourse is a-c.
• b) two or more sentences
• 2. You have an umbrella in your hand. An
  inference I could draw from that observation is
  that d-e.
• d) It is raining outside.
• 3. The ability of people with RHD to select
  relevant cues is f-g.
• f) deficient
• 4. The ability of people with RHD to integrate
  relevant cues with one another is f-g.
• f) deficient

4
Q8 answers, cont.

• 5. The ability of people with RHD to associate
  cues with prior experience or world knowledge is
  f-g.
• g) not deficient
• 6. The ability of people with RHD to supply an
  appropriate amount of discourse is f-g.
• f) deficient
• 7. The ability of people with RHD to understand
  literal language is f-g.
• g) not deficient
• 8. The ability of people with RHD to maintain an
  initial inference is f-g.
• g) not deficient

5
Q8 answers, cont.

• 9. The ability of people with RHD to attribute
  internal mental states to others is f-g.
• f) deficient
• 10. The ability of people with RHD to recognize
  the limits of shared knowledge is f-g.
• f) deficient

6
Course administration

• Course home page
• http//www.tulane.edu/ling/LING411/
• Readings are found
• MyTulane gt BrainLanguage_CC Brain and
  Language(Combined) gt Course Documents
• Public Service tasks
• I moved slides around to make topics of
  presentations consistent
• See link Oral Presentations on Assignment page
  
• http//www.tulane.edu/ling/LING411/ppt/d99-OralP
  resent.ppt

7
RH discourse review

• Myers 6

8
Summary

• LH (disrupted by LHD)
• ?
• Part
• ?
• Literal meanings (?)
• ?
• ?
• ?

• RH (disrupted by RHD)
• Macrostructure inferences
• Whole
• Information content
• Non-literal meanings
• Inference revision
• Theory of mind
• Conversational rules

9
Turn to article

• Nespoulous, J.-L., Code, C., Virbel, J.,
  Lecours, A. R. (1998). Hypotheses on the
  dissociation between "referential" and
  "modalizing" verbal behavior in aphasia. Applied
  Psycholinguistics, 19, 311-331.

10
Wernickes aphasiaWhat is retained? What is lost?

• Patient I am very happy to very happy oh, my
  God! I am very very well. I must admit that
  hmm my God! I have I have I enjoy
  because how can I tell you? hmm I /trevo
  / I will put wont I? it is silly,
  really, I will start to /berobi/ hmm. It is
  stupid that Then I told him well, hand it! I
  I said, Maître, and I preferred
  straightforwardly. I am happy to have

11
Nespoulous et al. say

• although the greatest part of this sample is
  made up of words easily identified as English
  words and although sentence structures seem
  appropriate, communication does not really take
  place between the patient and doctor.
• In fact, most of the speech that can be
  identified seems to consist of comments,
  interjections, and phrases which, most of the
  time, cannot truly be interpreted because they
  are not linked to any explicit information or
  proposition.

12
Wernickes aphasia with neologistic jargon What
is retained? What is lost?

• Clinician Have you already been here?
• Patient Oh yes, always Oh The fact is that I
  had a /akyky/ oh what the word for that?
  /sebyzyt/ whats the word? /bikylø/ a /asda/ of
  /sødøfø/ I dont remember how it was exactly
  Oh, surely surely yes, certainly always
  /avatelobo / one must listen to /lezozø/. You
  see what I mean? Its exactly Oh, I should
  succeed in /dekudroascedubø/ in finding that
  better a little better, if you please.

13
Nespoulous et al. say

• Strangely enough, non-neologistic segments
  consist of the very same type of comments,
  interjections, and phrases as the ones found in
  the first sample. As in that case, we are at a
  loss for any explicit information that would
  permit us to interpret the word strings.
• In fact, here we get the impression that,
  whenever the patient is about to give such
  explicit information on an unknown referent, he
  unavoidably produces jargon without being able to
  control for such production.
• This leads us to consider the possibility of a
  dissociation in speech production some words or
  word strings are massively distorted or absent,
  whereas others seem to be unaltered.

14
Modalizing vs. referential speech

• Nespoulous et al. refer to the unidentifiable or
  missing speech as referential and to the
  identifiable speech as modalizing.
• Referential speech makes reference to persons,
  objects, ideas, etc. which constitute the social
  and cultural background of a community. (p. 317
  dictum of Bally 1942, locutionary act of Austin
  1962, propositional speech of Jackson 1879).
• Modalizing speech reveals the speakers personal
  attitude to what he or she is saying about the
  referential material or about what the
  interlocutor is saying. (p. 317 modus of Bally
  1942, illocutionary force of Austin 1962).

15
Fluent aphasia What is retained? What is lost?

• Clinician Are there many types of Bristol cars
  around?
• Patient (Mr. G) no, not many kinds. Kind reams
  assessor, reams assessor about 4 or 5 re
  times and then reams assessor ends reams
  assessor.
• C So the same model is reintroduced?
• P Yes, but of course it rebeats a little bit and
  when you goes reams assessor it gives assessor.
• C Um, um. Yes, tell me, how old is the oldest
  car?
• P Ah the oldest car is a week, about, oh 1933
  or something.
• C 1933?
• P No, reams assessor! Anyway, its reams
  assessor right back. And its reams as sesser,
  and its reams assessor, reams a, reams a, reams
  assessor and that and on, you see. etc

16
Frontal aphasia What is retained? What is lost?

• Patient describing a narrative picture Oh, I had
  not noticed that pointing yes yes thats
  true then there is a street there,
  normally, they start to go downhill and they
  dont realize very well, I suppose since,
  apparently, its and there, then, they start to
  a little there I get the impression that they
  its there where, to tell you the truth, I
  didnt see very well, you must admit.

17
Brocas aphasia with agrammatism What is
retained? What is lost?

• Clinician What happened to you?
• Patient (Mr. C) Suddenly, paralyzed speech
  loss of speech hospital doctor Fontmaure
  name of hospital.
• C Do you still smoke so much?
• P No, diminished twelve day about.
• C When you left the hospital, where did you go?
• P Montlucon Hospital two days eight days
  without walking.

18
Laterality hypothesis

• Given that the various aphasias from which
  Nespoulous et al.s data are drawn are all
  attendant on LHD, we can hazard the hypothesis
  that
• referential speech is produced in the LH and so
  disrupted by LHD,
• while modalizing speech is produced in the RH and
  so spared by LHD (but disrupted by RHD).
• Is this latter idea consistent with what we have
  seen for RHD?

19
Their evidence for laterality

• Lilianne S. was a 14-year-old, left-handed girl
  whose naming of visual stimuli was only adequate
  for 9/100, but she commented on what she could
  not name
• Knife Its a I see what it is. Wait a minute!
  I know what it is. I cant tell you what it is
  but I know what it is
• Cigarette I know what it is. I dont like it.
  Its not good for me. Wait a minute! Im afraid
  of making a mistake. I hesitate. I'm sorry,
  Doctor, but I cant tell you.
• She had had a left anterior frontal abscess and
  whose rostral (anterior) half of the corpus
  callosum was severed as part of treatment
• gt RH dominant for language
• only modalizing speech is preserved gt it is in RH

20
Summary

• LH (disrupted by LHD)
• ?
• Part
• ?
• Literal meanings (?)
• ?
• ?
• ?
• Referential speech

• RH (disrupted by RHD)
• Macrostructure inferences
• Whole
• Information content
• Non-literal meanings
• Inference revision
• Theory of mind
• Conversational rules
• Modalizing speech

21
Next time

• Parsons, Lawrence M., and Osherson, Daniel N.
  2001. New evidence for distinct right and left
  brain systems for deductive versus probabilistic
  reasoning. Cerebral Cortex 11, 954-965.