Published on November 5, 2007
PARAPHASIC ERRORS IN CONDUCTION APHASIA: SLIPS OF THE TONGUE?: PARAPHASIC ERRORS IN CONDUCTION APHASIA: SLIPS OF THE TONGUE? John D. Tonkovich Kimberly Maraone Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti Poster session, 2004 ASHA Convention, Philadelphia Abstract: Abstract Paraphasic errors from the conversational speech of three individuals with conduction aphasia were transcribed and examined. The extent to which these errors resembled the speech errors or slips of the tongue noted in nonaphasic speakers in the literature was investigated. Results are discussed relative to phonological, semantic and syntactic characteristics. Paraphasias(Goodglass, Kaplan, and Barresi,2001): Paraphasias (Goodglass, Kaplan, and Barresi,2001) Literal (phonemic)- Sound structure of a word is partly erroneous, more than half is preserved Neologistic paraphasia: when less than half of a word is discernable from the intended Verbal – 3 types Semantic: word that is semantically related to the intended word (“mother” for “wife”) Unrelated verbal: word has no discernable semantic connection with the intended word Perseverative: word comes from earlier response Slips of the Tongue and Brain and Syntactic Slips : Slips of the Tongue and Brain and Syntactic Slips Slips of the tongue (speech errors): words or phrases in which sounds or syllables get swapped (e.g., “bacana” for “cabana”); some slips of the tongue are categorized as Spoonerisms, when the sounds or syllables from one word within an utterance are swapped with another word in that utterance Slide5: Slips of the brain (malapropisms): misuse of a word in an incorrect context (e.g., “fire distinguisher” for “fire extinguisher”); not typically related to other words in the utterance Syntactic slips: grammatical items within an utterance are switched (e.g., “Sally pursued James” instead of “James pursued Sally”) Hypothesis: Hypothesis Given that some paraphasias in persons with aphasia appear to be phonemic and others semantic, it was hypothesized that these might represent an exaggeration of the types of slips of the tongue, slips of the brain, and syntactic slips reported in nonaphasic speakers. Method: Method Paraphasic errors were transcribed from conversational and expository speech samples obtained from three persons with conduction aphasia. These individuals had fluent and melodic verbal output, normal articulatory agility, good auditory comprehension, word retrieval difficulties and poor repetition. Literal and verbal paraphasias were noted on repetition attempts. Results – Subject A. B.: Results – Subject A. B. 15 episodes of paraphasic errors: Literal (9)-e.g., “chairtis” for “charities” Unrelated verbal (6)-”hemlock” for “hernia” Slips of brain (8)-e.g., “aperture” for “acupuncture” Unclassifiable slips (7)-e.g., “sanister” for “banister” Results – Subject C.D.: Results – Subject C.D. 10 episodes of paraphasic errors: Literal (4)-e.g., “Halloweener” for “Halloween” Unrelated verbal (3)-e.g., “gumshoe” for “bubblegum” Neologistic (3)-e.g., “anthenium” for “amnesia” Slips of the brain (7)-e.g., ”scissors” for “slippers” Unclassifiable slips (3)-e.g., “tiren” for “siren” Results – Subject E.F.: Results – Subject E.F. 25 episodes of paraphasic errors: Literal (11)-e.g., “popder” for “powder” Neologistic (5)-e.g., “German cammenherd” for “German shepherd” Semantic (4)-e.g., “eleven” for “thirteen” Unrelated verbal (4)-e.g., “Nancy” for “daisy” Perseverative (1)-e.g., “Bing Jing” for “Big King” Slide11: Slips of the brain (8)-e.g., “hockey” for “Yorkie” Slips of the tongue (1)-e.g., “Poor Fops” for “Four Tops” Unclassified slips (16)-e.g., “my row row” for mirror” Discussion: Discussion No substantial evidence that slips of the tongue can account for paraphasias in these three individuals with conduction aphasia. In slips of the tongue, sounds or syllables within a word or utterances are switched. Switching of sounds and syllables did not typify the paraphasic errors in the speech of these individuals. Slide13: No evidence of syntactic slips was provided in this limited sample. A number of paraphasic errors could also be categorized as slips of the brain, reflecting these individuals’ difficulty in retrieving words from the mental lexicon. That these individuals had difficulty with retrieving specific semantic items during conversation was not surprising.