Catalogo Articoli (Spogli Riviste)

OPAC HELP

Titolo:
Sometimes a noun is just a noun: Comments on Bird, Howard, and Franklin (2000)
Autore:
Shapiro, K; Caramazza, A;
Indirizzi:
Harvard Univ, Dept Psychol, Cognit Neuropsychol Lab, Cambridge, MA 02138 USA Harvard Univ Cambridge MA USA 02138 opsychol Lab, Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
Titolo Testata:
BRAIN AND LANGUAGE
fascicolo: 2, volume: 76, anno: 2001,
pagine: 202 - 212
SICI:
0093-934X(200102)76:2<202:SANIJA>2.0.ZU;2-3
Fonte:
ISI
Lingua:
ENG
Soggetto:
CATEGORY-SPECIFIC DEFICITS; GRAMMATICAL CATEGORIES; SEMANTIC IMPAIRMENT; PURE ANOMIA; VERBS; KNOWLEDGE; BRAIN; LANGUAGE; DISSOCIATIONS; ORGANIZATION;
Keywords:
category-specific deficits; nouns; verbs; sensory/functional theory;
Tipo documento:
Editorial Material
Natura:
Periodico
Settore Disciplinare:
Social & Behavioral Sciences
Life Sciences
Citazioni:
48
Recensione:
Indirizzi per estratti:
Indirizzo: Caramazza, A Harvard Univ, Dept Psychol, Cognit Neuropsychol Lab, 33 Kirkland St,William James Hall,Room 940, Cambridge, MA 02138 USA Harvard Univ 33Kirkland St,William James Hall,Room 940 Cambridge MA USA 02138
Citazione:
K. Shapiro e A. Caramazza, "Sometimes a noun is just a noun: Comments on Bird, Howard, and Franklin (2000)", BRAIN LANG, 76(2), 2001, pp. 202-212

Abstract

Bird, Howard, and Franklin (2000) have proposed a semantic-conceptual explanation of grammatical category-specific deficits that attributes impairments in noun and verb processing to two distinct mechanisms. According to their account, apparent deficits in verb production are not category specific,but rather result from the lower imageability of verbs compared to concrete nouns. Noun deficits are said to result from differences in the distribution of semantic feature types such that damage to sensory features results in disproportionate impairments in naming nouns, especially animate nouns, compared to verbs. However, this hypothesis, which we call the "extended sensory/functional theory" (ESFT), fails on several counts. First, the assumption that representations of living things are more heavily freighted with sensory features than are those of nonliving objects does not have any reliable empirical basis. Second, the ESFT incorrectly predicts associations between deficits in processing sensory features and living things or functional features and nonliving things. Finally, there are numerous cases of patients with grammatical category-specific deficits that do not seem to be consistent with damage at the semantic level. All of this suggests that the ESFT is nor a useful model for considering grammatical (or semantic) category-specific deficits. (C) 2001 Academic Press.

ASDD Area Sistemi Dipartimentali e Documentali, Università di Bologna, Catalogo delle riviste ed altri periodici
Documento generato il 04/12/20 alle ore 02:46:25