汉语布洛卡氏失语症功能语类障碍的制图分析：一项个案追踪研究

doi:10.12002/j.bisu.476

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

本研究追踪考察一位汉语布洛卡氏失语症患者在言语恢复过程中的功能语类表现，包括时态短语（TP）和标句词短语（CP）及次级焦点短语（FocusP）和限定短语（FiniteP）。结果显示：①患者TP障碍严重、恢复慢，尤易在“了₁”上犯错；②呈现焦点量化障碍，“连”字句的极性敏感度受损严重但恢复较快。研究结果验证了跨语言的“过去时态障碍”，但不支持句法树高层受损假说。汉语失语症患者“了₁”和“了₂”的共性和分离性实证数据也显示汉语中的确存在隐性的限定与非限定的对立。

关键词: 布洛卡氏失语症; 句法障碍; 恢复过程; 功能语类; 制图理论

Abstract:

The present study aimed to investigate the functional category deficits, including the Tense Phrase (TP), the Complementizer Phrase (CP), and the sub-projections FocusP and FiniteP, in a Chinese speaker with agrammatic aphasia during his recovery process. The results revealed that the patient had the greatest difficulty with the TP, with a notable deficit in referring to the past tense. His sensitivity to the polarity items was severely impaired but had steadily been recovered. Although the data from Chinese agrammatism evinced the cross-linguistic demonstration, our results did not support the Tree Pruning Hypothesis. This study provided evidence for the theoretical analysis of the verbal le₁ and the sentence-final le₂. This study also shed light on the distinctions between finiteness and non-finiteness in the Chinese language.

Keywords: individual with Broca’s aphasia; syntactic impairment; recovery process; functional category; cartographic approach

中图分类号:

H0-06

王海燕, 于翠红, 柳鑫淼. 汉语布洛卡氏失语症功能语类障碍的制图分析：一项个案追踪研究[J]. 北京第二外国语学院学报, 2023, 45(5): 50-66.

Wang Haiyan, Yu Cuihong, Liu Xinmiao. A Cartographic Analysis of Functional Category Deficits in Chinese Agrammatism: A Longitudinal Case Study[J]. Journal of Beijing International Studies University, 2023, 45(5): 50-66.

图/表 6

参考文献 67

[1]	ADELT A, STADIE N, LASSOTTA R, et al. Feature dissimilarities in the processing of German relative clauses in aphasia[J]. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 2017(5):17-37.
[2]	ANJARNINGSIH H Y & BASTIAANSE R. Verbs and time reference in Standard Indonesian agrammatic speech[J]. Aphasiology, 2011(12):1562-1578.
[3]	ARABATZI M & EDWARDS S. Tense and syntactic processes in agrammatic speech[J]. Brain and Language, 2002(3):314-327. PMID
[4]	BADAN L & DEL GOBBO F. The even-construction and the low periphery in Mandarin[C]//TSAI D. Cartographic Approach to Chinese Syntax. New York: Oxford University Press, 2015:33-74.
[5]	BASTIAANSE R. Production of verbs in base position by Dutch agrammatic speakers:Inflection versus finiteness[J]. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 2008(2):104-119.
[6]	BASTIAANSE R. Why reference to the past is difficult for agrammatic speakers[J]. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 2013(4):244-263.
[7]	BASTIAANSE R, BAMYACI E, HSU C J, et al. Time reference in agrammatic aphasia:A cross-linguistic study[J]. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 2011(6):652-673.
[8]	BASTIAANSE R & EDWARDS S. Word order and finiteness in Dutch and English Broca’s and Wernicke’s aphasia[J]. Brain and Language, 2004(1):91-107.
[9]	BOS L S & BASTIAANSE R. Time reference decoupled from tense in agrammatic and fluent aphasia[J]. Aphasiology, 2014(5):533-553.
[10]	BURCHERT F, WEIDLICH C & DE BLESER R. Focus in the left periphery:A cue to agrammatic sentence comprehension?[J]. Brain and Language, 2005(1):115-116.
[11]	CHOMSKY N. Barriers[M]. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1986.
[12]	DEBLESER R & LUZZATTI C. Morphological processing in Italian agrammatic speakers syntactic implementation of inflectional morphology[J]. Brain and Language, 1994(1):21-40. PMID
[13]	DICKEY M W, MILMAN L H & THOMPSON C K. Judgment of functional morphology in agrammatic aphasia[J]. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 2008(1):35-65. DOI PMID
[14]	DRAGOY O & BASTIAANSE R. Aspects of time:Time reference and aspect production in Russian aphasic speakers[J]. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 2013(1):113-128.
[15]	DUMAN T Y, AYGEN G, ÖZGIRGIN N, et al. Object scrambling and finiteness in Turkish agrammatic production[J]. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 2007(4):306-331.
[16]	FRIEDMANN N. Agrammatism and the psychological reality of the syntactic tree[J]. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 2001(1):71-90. PMID
[17]	FRIEDMANN N. Degrees of severity and recovery in agrammatism:Climbing up the syntactic tree[J]. Aphasiology, 2005(10/11):1037-1051.
[18]	FRIEDMANN N & GRODZINSKY Y. Tense and agreement in agrammatic production:Pruning the syntactic tree[J]. Brain and Language, 1997(3):397-425.
[19]	GRODZINSKY Y. The neurology of syntax:Language use without Broca’s area[J]. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2000(1):1-21.
[20]	HAGIWARA H. The breakdown of functional categories and the economy of derivation[J]. Brain and Language, 1995(1):92-116. PMID
[21]	HUANG C T J. Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar[D]. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1982.
[22]	HUANG C T J. Pro-drop in Chinese:A generalized control theory[C]//JAEGGLI O A & SAFIR K J. The Null Subject Parameter. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 1989:185-214.
[23]	LEE J, Milman L H & Thompson C K. Functional category production in agrammatic speech[J]. Brain and Language, 2005(1):123-124.
[24]	LEE M. Dissociations among functional categories in Korean agrammatism[J]. Brain and Language, 2003(2):170-188. PMID
[25]	LI C N & Thompson S A. Mandarin Chinese:A Functional Reference Grammar[M]. Berkeley: University of California Press,1981.
[26]	LIN T H J. Finiteness of clauses and raising of arguments in Mandarin Chinese[J]. Syntax, 2011(1):48-73.
[27]	LIU X, WANG H, XIE A, et al. An experimental paradigm for measuring the effects of ageing on sentence processing[J]. Journal of Visualized Experiments, 2019(152):e60417.
[28]	MARSHALL J, CHIAT S & PRING T. An impairment in processing verbs’ thematic roles:A therapy study[J]. Aphasiology, 1997(9):855-876.
[29]	NERANTZINI M, VARLOKOSTA S, PAPADOPOULOU D, et al. Wh-questions and relative clauses in Greek agrammatism:Evidence from comprehension and production[J]. Aphasiology, 2014(4):490-514.
[30]	PAN V J & PAUL W. Why Chinese SFPs are neither optional nor disjunctors[J]. Lingua, 2016, 170:23-34. DOI URL
[31]	PAUL W. Why particles are not particular:Sentence-final particles in Chinese as heads of a split CP[J]. Studia Linguistica, 2014(1):77-115.
[32]	PAUL W & WHITMAN J. Topic prominence[C]//EVERAERT M & VAN RIEMSDIJK H C. The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax. 2^nd Ed. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, 2017:1-31.
[33]	POLLOCK J Y. Verb movement,universal grammar,and the structure of IP[J]. Linguistic Inquiry, 1989(3):365-424.
[34]	RIZZI L. The fine structure of the left periphery[C]//Haegeman L. Elements of Grammar. Dordrecht: Springer, 1997:281-337.
[35]	RIZZI L. On the cartography of syntactic structures[C] // RIZZI L. The Structure of IP and CP:The Cartography of Syntactic Structures. Vol. 2. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004:3-15.
[36]	STAVRAKAKI S & KOUVAVA S. Functional categories in agrammatism:Evidence from Greek[J]. Brain and Language, 2003(1):129-141.
[37]	SU Y C, LEE S E & CHUNG Y M. Asyntactic thematic role assignment by Mandarin aphasics:A test of the Trace-Deletion Hypothesis and the Double Dependency Hypothesis[J]. Brain and Language, 2007(1):1-18.
[38]	SYBESMA R. Whether we tense-agree overtly or not[J]. Linguistic Inquiry, 2007(3):580-587.
[39]	TANG C C J. Chinese Phrase Structure and the Extended X’-Theory[D]. Ithaca: Cornell University,1990.
[40]	TANG T C. Finite and nonfinite clauses in Chinese[J]. Language and Linguistics, 2000(1):191-214.
[41]	TSAI P S, TZENG O J L, HUNG, et al. Using magnetoencephalography to investigate processing of negative polarity items in Mandarin Chinese[J]. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 2013(2):258-270.
[42]	TSAI W T D. Left periphery and how-why alternations[J]. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 2008a, 17:83-115. DOI URL
[43]	TSAI W T D. Tense anchoring in Chinese[J]. Lingua, 2008b(5):675-686.
[44]	WANG H Y, LIU X M, WANG X L, et al. Functional category production and degrees of severity:Findings from Chinese agrammatism[J]. Aphasiology, 2019(10):1227-1247.
[45]	WENZLAFF M & CLAHSEN H. Tense and agreement in German agrammatism[J]. Brain and Language, 2004(1):57-68. PMID
[46]	WU Z. A minimalist approach to the re-grammaticalization of morphology:Chinese verbal -le as aspect and tense[J]. Linguistic Variation Yearbook, 2004(1):261-297.
[47]	YANG X L, SHI R S & XU K L. Grammatical aspect in early child Mandarin:Evidence from a preferential looking experiment[J]. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 2018(6):1301-1320.
[48]	蔡维天. 谈“只”与“连”的形式语义[J]. 中国语文, 2004(2):99-111.
[49]	陈前瑞. 句尾“了”将来时间用法的发展[J]. 语言教学与研究, 2005(1):66-73.
[50]	何文彬. 论语气助词“了”的主观性[J]. 语言研究, 2013(1):10-18.
[51]	黄瓒辉. “了₂”对事件的存在量化及标记事件焦点的功能[J]. 世界汉语教学, 2016(1):42-58.
[52]	金立鑫. 词尾“了”的时体意义及其句法条件[J]. 世界汉语教学, 2002(1):34-43.
[53]	刘丹青. 作为典型构式句的非典型“连”字句[J]. 语言教学与研究, 2005(4):1-12.
[54]	刘涛, 周统权, 杨亦鸣. 主语关系从句加工优势的普遍性——来自汉语关系从句ERP研究的证据[J]. 语言科学, 2011(1):1-20.
[55]	刘月华, 潘文娱, 故韡, 等. 实用现代汉语语法[M]. 北京: 商务印书馆, 2001.
[56]	吕叔湘. 现代汉语八百词[M]. 北京: 商务印书馆, 1999.
[57]	邵洪亮. “已经”的体标记功能羡余研究[J]. 汉语学习, 2013(6):33-40.
[58]	谭春健. 句尾“了”构成的句式、语义及语用功能[J]. 汉语学习, 2004(2):26-31.
[59]	王海燕, 钟晓云, 翟淑琪. 从一例失语症患者的恢复过程看汉语中的时态问题[J]. 北京第二外国语学院学报, 2017(1):45-56. DOI
[60]	文卫平. 英汉极性触发结构比较[J]. 外语教学与研究, 2015(2):190-203.
[61]	熊仲儒. 连字句的制图分析[J]. 现代外语, 2017(4):439-450.
[62]	熊仲儒. 汉语左边界句法成分的制图分析[J]. 北京第二外国语学院学报, 2022(1):42-62. DOI
[63]	于浩鹏, 何晓炜, 王海燕. 普通话特殊型语言障碍儿童关系从句产出研究[J]. 现代外语, 2017(4):495-506.
[64]	中国社会科学院语言研究所词典编辑室. 现代汉语词典[M]. 第5版. 北京: 商务印书馆, 2005.
[65]	周统权, 郑伟, 舒华, 等. 汉语宾语关系从句加工优势论——来自失语症研究的证据[J]. 语言科学, 2010(3):225-243.
[66]	朱德熙. 语法讲义[M]. 北京: 商务印书馆, 1982.
[67]	朱庆祥. 从序列事件语篇看“了₁”的隐现规律[J]. 中国语文, 2014(2):134-148.

任务	判断		复述		拼字造句
任务	数量	平均句长	数量	平均句长	数量	平均句长
连字句	36（U18）	9.6	18	10.1	18	10.9
了₂	56（U28）	7.2	27	6.5	27	6.7
了₁	14（U5）	7.6	9	7.3	9	8
过	24（U12）	8	10	7.4	10	8
在	7（U3）	7.3	4	6.8	4	7
着	14（U6）	8.3	8	7.3	8	8

任务	判断		复述		拼字造句
任务	数量	平均句长	数量	平均句长	数量	平均句长
连字句	36（U18）	9.6	18	10.1	18	10.9
了₂	56（U28）	7.2	27	6.5	27	6.7
了₁	14（U5）	7.6	9	7.3	9	8
过	24（U12）	8	10	7.4	10	8
在	7（U3）	7.3	4	6.8	4	7
着	14（U6）	8.3	8	7.3	8	8

任务	判断			复述			拼字造句
任务	阶段1	阶段2	阶段3	阶段1	阶段2	阶段3	阶段1	阶段2	阶段3
连字句	32/36	33/36	34/36	36/36	36/36	36/36	4/18	13/18	17/18
了₂	41/56	52/56	47/56	27/27	27/27	27/27	19/27	24/27	27/27
了₁	13/14	11/14	13/14	7/9	8/9	9/9	3/9	1/9	3/9
过	17/24	17/24	24/24	10/10	10/10	10/10	6/10	5/10	10/10
在	5/7	5/7	7/7	4/4	4/4	4/4	4/4	4/4	4/4
着	10/14	11/14	14/14	8/8	8/8	8/8	7/8	5/8	8/8

任务	判断			复述			拼字造句
任务	阶段1	阶段2	阶段3	阶段1	阶段2	阶段3	阶段1	阶段2	阶段3
连字句	32/36	33/36	34/36	36/36	36/36	36/36	4/18	13/18	17/18
了₂	41/56	52/56	47/56	27/27	27/27	27/27	19/27	24/27	27/27
了₁	13/14	11/14	13/14	7/9	8/9	9/9	3/9	1/9	3/9
过	17/24	17/24	24/24	10/10	10/10	10/10	6/10	5/10	10/10
在	5/7	5/7	7/7	4/4	4/4	4/4	4/4	4/4	4/4
着	10/14	11/14	14/14	8/8	8/8	8/8	7/8	5/8	8/8

错误类型	目标例句	实际产出例句
产出替换	他养了₁两只蝈蝈。他摔了₁一跤。咱们吃了₁饭就去看电影。	他养两只蝈蝈了₂。他摔一跤了₂。 *咱们吃饭就去看电影了₂。
判断不敏感	他每天吃了₁一个馒头。小吴每天没看过这本书。我能在等老吴。小吴能过看这本书。我也忘了问连他住在哪里。他都不会相信连一个人。