A Secondary Analysis of Time Reference in the Discourse of Persian-Speaking Individuals with Fluent and Non-Fluent Aphasia.

IF 0.7
Navideh Shakeri, Fariba Yadegari, Shadi Alipour, Robab Teymouri
{"title":"A Secondary Analysis of Time Reference in the Discourse of Persian-Speaking Individuals with Fluent and Non-Fluent Aphasia.","authors":"Navideh Shakeri, Fariba Yadegari, Shadi Alipour, Robab Teymouri","doi":"10.1159/000553206","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>According to the Past Discourse Linking Hypothesis (PADILIH), people with agrammatic aphasia have difficulty referring to the past tense. Yet, the account is challenged by task-dependent arguments, i.e., unlike spontaneous speech tasks, structured tests require predictable answers from people with aphasia (PWA), keeping them far from free retrieval of tense forms. The current study was aimed at examining time reference in the discourse of fluent and non-fluent Persian-speaking PWAs using secondary data.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used the transcribed discourse samples of Alipour et al.'s (2024) study, which were elicited through a picture description task, open-ended questions, and narrative speech of their PWA and non-brain-damaged (NBD) participants. We counted the present imperfect (or present), past tense, simple past, past perfect, past imperfect, present perfect and future imperfect (or future). Time reference categories were compared between and within groups. PWA tense/aspect errors were evaluated quantitatively and qualitatively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The fluent group used the past imperfect more than NBDs; NBDs used the present and imperfect aspect more than the fluent group (p < 0.01). NBDs used the present imperfect, simple past, present perfect, future imperfect, past tense, perfect aspect and imperfect aspect more than the non-fluent group (p < 001). Both PWA groups made errors in referring to past, present and future tenses, but in most cases were able to use the appropriate time reference.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The presence of a deficit in past tense marking was not confirmed in the present study. The finding does not support PADILIH; yet, further research is needed across tasks and languages.</p>","PeriodicalId":520626,"journal":{"name":"Folia phoniatrica et logopaedica : official organ of the International Association of Logopedics and Phoniatrics (IALP)","volume":" ","pages":"1-10"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Folia phoniatrica et logopaedica : official organ of the International Association of Logopedics and Phoniatrics (IALP)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000553206","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: According to the Past Discourse Linking Hypothesis (PADILIH), people with agrammatic aphasia have difficulty referring to the past tense. Yet, the account is challenged by task-dependent arguments, i.e., unlike spontaneous speech tasks, structured tests require predictable answers from people with aphasia (PWA), keeping them far from free retrieval of tense forms. The current study was aimed at examining time reference in the discourse of fluent and non-fluent Persian-speaking PWAs using secondary data.

Methods: We used the transcribed discourse samples of Alipour et al.'s (2024) study, which were elicited through a picture description task, open-ended questions, and narrative speech of their PWA and non-brain-damaged (NBD) participants. We counted the present imperfect (or present), past tense, simple past, past perfect, past imperfect, present perfect and future imperfect (or future). Time reference categories were compared between and within groups. PWA tense/aspect errors were evaluated quantitatively and qualitatively.

Results: The fluent group used the past imperfect more than NBDs; NBDs used the present and imperfect aspect more than the fluent group (p < 0.01). NBDs used the present imperfect, simple past, present perfect, future imperfect, past tense, perfect aspect and imperfect aspect more than the non-fluent group (p < 001). Both PWA groups made errors in referring to past, present and future tenses, but in most cases were able to use the appropriate time reference.

Conclusion: The presence of a deficit in past tense marking was not confirmed in the present study. The finding does not support PADILIH; yet, further research is needed across tasks and languages.

波斯语流利与非流利失语症患者话语中的时间参照分析。
导读:根据过去语篇连接假说(PADILIH),语文性失语症患者存在指称过去时的困难。然而,这种说法受到任务依赖论点的挑战,即,与自发的言语任务不同,结构化测试需要失语症患者(PWA)的可预测答案,使他们远离自由检索时态形式。本研究旨在利用二手资料,检视流利与非流利波斯语学童语篇中的时间参考。方法:我们使用了Alipour等(2024)的转录话语样本,这些样本是通过图片描述任务、开放式问题和PWA和非脑损伤(NBD)参与者的叙述性言语引出的。我们计算了现在不完成时、过去时、一般过去时、过去完成时、过去不完成时、现在完成时和将来不完成时。组间及组内比较时间参考类别。定量和定性地评价PWA时态/方面误差。结果:流利组使用过去完成时多于非流利组;nbd组较流利组多使用现在时和不完全时(P< 0.01)。nbd组的一般过去时、一般过去时、现在完成时、将来不完成时、过去时、完成时和不完成时的使用频率高于非流利组(结论:本研究未证实过去时标记存在缺陷。这一发现并不支持PADILIH,然而,需要跨任务和跨语言的进一步研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书