Seham A.A. Bukhari English Language Department, Umm Al Qura University Supervisor

1. UG Role in Language Impairment:A Comparative Descriptive Studyin an Agrammatic Aphasics’ Wh and Yes/No Questions Formation. Seham A.A. Bukhari English Language Department, Umm Al Qura University Supervisor Dr.Anas Abu Mansour Assistant Professor of Linguistics 8 April 2008

2. Content • Background • Aim and Rationales • Approaches • Analysis • Findings • Discussion • Conclusion

3. Background What is agrammatism? In Broca’s aphasia or nonfluent aphasia the patient tends to omit grammatical morphemes. So this phenomenon can be described as a telegraphic speech.

4. Background UG theory UG is a theory of linguistics that postulates principles of grammar shared by all languages, thought to be innate to humans. Regarding the parameters that vary from one language to another (Chomsky, 1965). The relations If UG is applicable to normal languages, will language impairment, specifically agrammatism contribute to our understanding of aspects of UG? Do agrammatic aphasics follow certain patterns that are applied by UG in their language impairment across languages?

5. Aim Since UG provides an important explanation of language formation, in this study the researcher selects language impairment that is caused by brain damage to investigate the following question Does language impairment, specifically agrammatism contribute to our understanding of aspects of UG?

6. Rationales Importance of the Study This study may provide the neurologist and other psycholinguistics researchers with linguistic solutions and systematic analyses in order to generalize language impairment and consider it as a universal phenomenon, specifically in agrammatism.

7. Research Approaches The Comparative Descriptive Approach • The Comparative Approach It compares more than one study and investigates similar phenomena from another time and place. • The Descriptive Approach It attempts to examine situations in order to establish what is the norm or what can be predicted to happen again under the same circumstances.

8. The Comparative Approach (comparison of 3 languages + case study) The Descriptive Approach (Interview) TPH UG Research Approaches Agrammatism

9. Phases of the Study Phase (I) A comparison of previous studies, which are about speakers of Hebrew, Palestinian Arabic, and the result of English languages, about Wh and Yes/No question formation in agrammatic aphasia. Phase (II) A face to face interview in a case study, where data are collected during the interview by the researcher who focuses on Wh and Yes/No question formation.

10. Phase I • Previous Studies • By referring to TPH, Friedman (1980) investigated Wh and Yes/No question production in agrammatic aphasia. • The participants were 13 speakers of Hebrew, 2 Palestinian Arabic speakers, and 1 English speaker.

11. Phase II Case Study • Mrs. X is a seventy-five year old Saudi female patient who lives in Makkah. • In 2004 • When she was praying, she felt dizzy, drowsy, and then went into Coma. • On examination, the patient was semiconscious, responding to painful stimuli by limbs movement of the left side, aphasic, hyporeflexia and hypotonic on the right side, and with right facial palsy. • In 2005 • The patient has improved regarding aphasia and started to speak with mild improvement of the motor power of right upper limb. • In 2006 • The patient speaks fluently, but misses some grammatical morphemes and words. Her motor power of the right limb is fully recovered.

12. Analysis • The analysis focuses on two aspects Wh and Yes/No question formation. • The analysis method is the Tree Pruning Hypothesis (TPH). It predicts that the Agrammatics fail to access the highest node of the tree, namely CP and TP (Friedmann and Grodzinsky, 2000).

13. Analysis

14. Example English Did you eat pasta?  you eat pasta? Hebrew Eifo dani sam ethamafteax? dani sam et hamaftex eifo? Where did Dani put the key?  Dani put the key where? Arabic Hijjazi Fain rahat al-hurmah? Roh alhormah fain? Where did the woman go? Go the woman where?

15. Findings Phase (I) • In English both Wh and Yes/No questions are impaired. • In Hebrew and Arabic Wh questions are impaired and Yes/No questions are spared. Phase (II) For Mrs. X • The Wh question production is impaired. • The Yes/No question production is spared.

16. Discussion Main findings • The deficit in Wh and Yes/No question formation in agrammatism is a structural deficit in the CP and TP nodes • It is not a general problem with question formation as Behaviorism claims. XP Specifier X’ X Complement • According to UG, the parameters are intact and the principles are impaired.

17. Agrammatism The Comparative Approach (comparison of 3 languages + case study) The Descriptive Approach (Interview) TPH UG 17

18. Conclusion • Agrammatic aphasics across languages follow the same pattern, which is explained by TPH. • In forming Wh and Yes/No questions. The selective pattern of question production impairment accounts for the universality of UG.

19. Conclusion • The study question.. Does language impairment, specifically agrammatism contribute to our understanding of aspects of UG? • yes, language impairment, specifically agrammatism contributes to our understanding of aspects of UG