Using Hungarian language to clarify languagethought relations in impaired populations Csaba Plh and

1
Using Hungarian language to clarify
language-thought relations in impaired
populations Csaba Pléh and Ágnes Lukács
Department of Cognitive ScienceBudapest
University of Technology and Economics and
HAS-BME Research Group of Neuropsychology and
Psycholinguistics Talk at the symposium on
Williams SyndromeFonyód, Hungary, June 25th 2005
2
Outline

• The logic of studying genetic disorders of
  cognition
• Williams syndrome as a favorit dissociative
  disorder
• Possible role of interlanguage comparions
• Studies on Hungarian in WS subjects
• Supporting spatial language problems, but
  rejecting a specific disorder, questioning the
  simple intact grammar versus impaired lexicon
  dissocation

3
Disordered populations and cross-linguistic
comparisons

• If there is a genetic disorder, it should be
  manifested in the same way in all languages and
  cultures
• Crosslingustic comparisons are still relevant
• I. They allow to separate factors that are tied
  in one language. E.g. irregularity and frequency
  in English morphology.
• II. They may help to support epigenetic theories
  that emphasize the complex pathways leading to
  disturbed cognition

4
The interest towards Williams syndrome

• Promises to help understand the
  genes-brain-cognition chain
• Clear dissociations proposed in cognition
• WS social - autistic asocial
• WS localistic - Down syndrome holistic
• WS good language SLI weak language

5
WS cognition Strengths and weaknesses

• Strengths
• Good social skills
• Relative good language
• Grammar good in language
• Musicality

• Weaknesses
• Low IQ 60-80
• Weak visuo-spatial cognition
• Lexicon and knowledge weak
• Hyperacusia

6
Language in Williams syndrome Theories and the
Hungarian data

• Studies and theories
• Frequency is not relevant in the lexicon
• The mental lexicon is atypically organized
• Grammatical rules seem to be intact (Pinker,
  Clahsen)
• The language of space is especially weak

• Hungarian test
• Frequencies and individual differences
• More categories and category fluencies
• More stem classes and frequencies used
• Weakness, but no qualitative differences

7
(No Transcript)
8
Stimuli in the picture naming task
Nouns Verbs
Compounds
Frequent
Rare
9
Lexical frequency effect Present
10
Effects of verbal STM span Frequent
F(1,13)1.35, n.s. Rare (1,13)13.13, plt.005
11
Threshold effects in controls, verbal working
memory correlations nin significant in controls

12
Semantic fluency and supposed iddyosynchretic
organization WS subjects and controls matched on
verbal age in a category fluency task
13
Comparisons based on category norms of Kónya
Pintér (1986) No systematic differences between
the two groups in the frequency of items they
produced WS produced less frequent musical
instrument names No systematic differences
between the two groups in the average rank of
items they produced WS subjects had higher scores
(i.e. pruduced items appearing later in the
original lists) in clothes and musical instruments
14
Morphological irregularity Stimuli in the
morphology task
Regular cipo-cipok shoe-shoes
Irregular
bagoly-baglyok owl-owls
15
Presupposed dissociation is missing Rules vs.
Items
16
Qualitative comparison of errors

• If anything, more overgeneralization in controls

17
Spatial versus nonspatial morphology in WS As
expected, spatial language is impaired
18
The language of space in Hungarian allows for
qualitative comparisons

• Obligatory distinctions along the path
• Three markers for GOAL, SOURCE, LOCATION. Is
  there a difference?

19
WS is weaker in postposition production. SOURCES
are difficult for both groups
20
Less difference in comprehension than production,
suffixes
21
Source difficulty

• Our data support Landau and Zukowskis
  hypothesis the difficulty with retaining
  information in memory can account for special
  difficulty with SOURCE paths.
• The pattern is similar to what we observe in
  typical development at earlier stages.

22
Comparing spatial and non-spatial uses in a
repetition task
SPATIAL Az oroszlán megszökött a ketrecbol. The
lion escaped the cage-ELA. The lion escaped from
the cage. NON SPATIAL Pisti tanult a
balesetbol Pisti learnt the accident-ELA. Pisti
learnt from the accident.
23
Possibilities here

• Non-spatial is relatively easier for WS subjects
• Non-spatial is more difficult for both groups
• Differences diminish since there is no need for
  referntial coding of space

24
Non spatial is weaker for both groups
25
Conclusions Why was it relevant to do studies in
Hungarian?

• Frequencv is a factor in WS language, and memory
  is an important mediating variable
• WS shows no clear support for the intact rules
  impaired lexicon model
• Spatial language is impaired in WS, but the
  patterns is the same as in typical development
• Difficulties with spatial language in WS reflect
  their problems in spatial cognition

26
Acknowledgements Hungarian Willams Syndrome
Association NSF, Hungarian National Science
Foundation, Hungarian National R and D Foundation