Article/Report  |   June 1999
Treatment and Generalization of Complex Sentence Production in Agrammatism
Author Notes
Language Disorders / Aphasia / Language
Article/Report   |   June 1999
Treatment and Generalization of Complex Sentence Production in Agrammatism
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research June 1999, Vol.42, 690-707. doi:10.1044/jslhr.4203.690
History: Accepted 26 Oct 1998 , Received 01 Jul 1988
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research June 1999, Vol.42, 690-707. doi:10.1044/jslhr.4203.690
History: Accepted 26 Oct 1998 , Received 01 Jul 1988

The present study applies single-subject experimental design to examine (a) the acquisition and generalization of complex sentence production in agrammatism using Linguistic Specific Treatment (LST) and (b) the utility of syntactic theory in guiding hypotheses of treatment effects. LST trains construction and production of complex sentence structures. Four sentence types were selected for study: object clefts and object-extracted matrix and embedded questions (which are noncanonical with wh-movement), and embedded actives (which are canonical with no overt movement). All sentences contain overt material in the complementizer phrase (CP) of the syntactic tree. Three of five participants (1, 2, and 3) demonstrated generalization from object cleft treatment to production of matrix questions. Thus, LST was effective in improving their ability to generate less complex sentences with wh-movement. Once production of object clefts and matrix questions was acquired, all 5 participants demonstrated generalization from treatment to improved production of embedded questions and/or embedded actives. This generalization involved improved ability to generate embedded clausal structure to form complex sentences but continuing inability to express overt material in CP. Finally, direct treatment for embedded questions did not result in accurate production of embedded actives or vice versa. There were no trends across participants toward improved production of morphosyntactic behaviors in narrative. Persons 1, 2, and 3 showed generalization to increased informativeness and efficiency of expression and were judged by independent listeners to improve in content, coherence, and fluency of spontaneous production. The remaining two participants showed no change or a decline in performance in narrative language production (4 and 5, respectively). These participants demonstrated more severe Broca's aphasia at pretesting compared to Persons 1, 2, and 3, with greater impairments in auditory comprehension, naming, and reading. Etiology and size of lesion did not appear to account for the different behavioral patterns. This study supports the use of LST, which applies syntactic theory to predict patterns of generalization, as an effective treatment approach.

Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access

Related Articles

Integrated Training for Aphasia: An application of part-whole learning to treat lexical retrieval, sentence production, and discourse level communications in three cases of nonfluent aphasia
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology March 2014, Vol., No Pagination Specified. doi:10.1044/2014_AJSLP-12-0054
Rehabilitation in Bilingual Aphasia: Evidence for Within‐ and Between‐Language Generalization
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology May 2013, Vol.22, S298-S309. doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2013/12-0085)
Nonwords and Generalization in Children With Phonological Disorders
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology May 2010, Vol.19, 167-177. doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2009/09-0020)
Effect of Semantic Naming Treatment on Crosslinguistic Generalization in Bilingual AphasiaEdmonds & Kiran: Naming Treatment and Crosslinguistic Generalization
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research August 2006, Vol.49, 729-748. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2006/053)
RE: Powell, T. W. (1991). Planning for phonological generalization: An approach to treatment target selection. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 1(1), 21–27
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology May 1992, Vol.1, 64. doi:10.1044/1058-0360.0103.64a