It has been shown across several languages that verb inflection is difficult for agrammatic aphasic speakers. In particular, Tense inflection is vulnerable. Several theoretical accounts for this have been posed, for example, a pure syntactic one suggesting that the Tense node is unavailable due to its position in the syntactic tree (Friedmann & Grodzinsky, 1997); one suggesting that the interpretable features of the Tense node are underspecified (Burchert, Swoboda-Moll, & De Bleser, 2005; Wenzlaff & Clahsen, 2004, 2005); and a morphosemantic one, arguing that the diacritic Tense features are affected in agrammatism (Faroqi–Shah & Dickey, 2009; Lee, Milman, & Thompson, 2008). However recent findings (Bastiaanse, 2008) and a reanalysis of some oral production studies (e.g. Lee et al., 2008; Nanousi, Masterson, Druks, & Atkinson, 2006) suggest that both Tense and Aspect are impaired and, most importantly, reference to the past is selectively impaired, both through simple verb forms (such as simple past in English) and through periphrastic verb forms (such as the present perfect, ‘has V-ed’, in English). It will be argued that reference to the past is discourse linked and reference to the present and future is not (Zagona, 2003, in press). In-line with Avrutin’s (2000) theory that suggests discourse linking is impaired in Broca’s aphasia, the PAst DIscourse LInking Hypothesis (PADILIH) has been formulated. Three predictions were tested: (1) patients with agrammatic aphasia are selectively impaired in use of grammatical morphology associated with reference to the past, whereas, inflected forms which refer to the present and future are relatively spared; (2) this impairment is language-independent; and (3) this impairment will occur in both production and comprehension. Agrammatic Chinese, English and Turkish speakers were tested with the Test for Assessing Reference of Time (TART; Bastiaanse, Jonkers, & Thompson, unpublished). Results showed that both the English and Turkish agrammatic speakers performed as hypothesized, showing a selective deficit for production of inflected forms referring to the past, despite the typological difference between the languages. The Chinese agrammatic speakers were poor in reference to the past as well, but reference to the present and future also was severely impaired. For comprehension, the results were strikingly similar for the three languages: reference to the past was impaired for all. These results confirmed our hypothesis that reference to the past is discourse linked and, therefore, grammatical morphology used for reference to the past is impaired in agrammatic aphasia, whether this is done through Tense and/or Aspect markers.

We propose, and provide corpus-based support for, a usage-based explanation for cross-linguistic trends in the coding of causal–noncausal verb pairs, such as raise/rise, break (tr.)/break (intr.). While English mostly uses the same verb form both for the causal and the noncausal sense (labile coding), most languages have extra coding for the causal verb (causative coding) and/or for the noncausal verb (anticausative coding). Causative and anticausative coding is not randomly distributed (Haspelmath 1993): Some verb meanings, such as ‘freeze’, ‘dry’ and ‘melt’, tend to be coded as causatives, while others, such as ‘break’, ‘open’ and ‘split’, tend to be coded as anticausatives. We propose an explanation of these coding tendencies on the basis of the form–frequency correspondence principle, which is a general efficiency principle that is responsible for many grammatical asymmetries, ultimately grounded in predictability of frequently expressed meanings. In corpus data from seven languages, we find that verb pairs for which the noncausal member is more frequent tend to be coded as anticausatives, while verb pairs for which the causal member is more frequent tend to be coded as causatives. Our approach implies that linguists should not rely on form–meaning parallelism when trying to explain cross-linguistic or language-particular patterns in this domain.

This study investigates the characteristics of narrative-speech production and the use of verbs in Turkish agrammatic speakers (n = 10) compared to non-brain-damaged controls (n = 10). To elicit narrativespeech samples, personal interviews and storytelling tasks were conducted. Turkish has a large and regular verb inflection paradigm where verbs are inflected for evidentiality (i.e. direct versus indirect evidence available to the speaker). Particularly, we explored the general characteristics of the speech samples (e.g. utterance length) and the uses of lexical, finite and non-finite verbs and direct and indirect evidentials. The results show that speech rate is slow, verbs per utterance are lower than normal and the verb diversity is reduced in the agrammatic speakers. Verb inflection is relatively intact; however, a trade-off pattern between inflection for direct evidentials and verb diversity is found. The implications of the data are discussed in connection with narrative-speech production studies on other languages. ARTICLE HISTORY

No abstract