Testing the aspect first hypothesis : A preliminary investigation into the comprehension of tense in child greek

Crosslinguistic research on the production of tense morphology in child language has shown that young children use past or perfective forms mainly with telic predicates and present or imperfective forms mainly with atelic predicates. However, this pattern, which has come to be known as the Aspect First Hypothesis, has been challenged in a number of comprehension studies. These studies suggest that children do not rely on aspectual information for their interpretation of tense morphology. The present paper tests the validity of the Aspect First Hypothesis in child Greek by investigating Greek-speaking children’s early comprehension of present, past and future tense morphology as well as the role that lexical aspect plays in the early use of tense morphology. It is suggested that although Greek-speaking children have not yet fully mapped the tense concepts to the correct tense morphology, tense acquisition does not seem to be significantly affected by the aspectual characteristics (i.e. the telicity) of the verb

Efficacy of Elaborated Semantic Features Analysis in Aphasia: a quasi-randomised controlled trial

Background: Word finding difficulty is one of the most common features of aphasia. Semantic Features Analysis (SFA) directly aims to improve word finding in people with aphasia. Evidence from systematic reviews suggests that SFA leads to positive outcomes, yet the evidence comprises single case studies and case series. There is a need to evaluate the efficacy of SFA in controlled group studies/trials. Aims: To evaluate the efficacy of Elaborated Semantic Feature Analysis (ESFA) for word finding in people with aphasia. We investigated: (a) the efficacy of ESFA versus a delayed therapy/control, (b) the efficacy of two therapy approaches– individual versus a combination of individual and group therapy. Methods and procedures: We ran a multi-centre, quasi-randomised controlled trial, nested in a larger study (Thales-Aphasia). Participants were recruited from community settings. They had to be people with aphasia due to stroke at least four months post-onset. Participants were randomized to individual vs combination vs delayed therapy/control groups. Both therapy groups had three hours of ESFA per week for 12 weeks. Delayed therapy/control group had no intervention for 12 weeks and were then randomized to either individual or combination therapy. The primary outcome was confrontation naming. Secondary outcomes were the Boston Naming Test, Discourse, the Functional Assessment of Communication Skills for adults (ASHA–FACS), the Stroke and Aphasia Quality of Life scale (SAQOL-39g), the General Health Questionnaire-12 item, and the EQ-5D. Outcomes and Results: Of the 72 participants of the Thales-Aphasia project, 58 met eligibility criteria for speech-language therapy and 39 were allocated to ESFA. The critical p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (.005). For the therapy versus control comparison, there was a significant main effect of time on the primary outcome (p<.001, η2p=.42) and a significant interaction effect (p=.003, η2p=.21). An interaction effect for the SAQOL-39g (p=.015, η2p=.11) and its psychosocial domain (p=.013, η2p=.12) did not remain significant after Bonferroni adjustment. For the individual versus combination ESFA comparison, there were significant main effects of time on the primary outcome (p<.001, η2p=.49), the BNT (p<.001, η2p=.29) and the ASHA-FACS (p=.001, η2p=.18). Interaction and group effects were not significant. Conclusion: Though underpowered, this study provides evidence on the efficacy of ESFA to improve word finding in aphasia, with gains similar in the two therapy approaches. Trial registration: ISRCTN71455409, https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN7145540

An aphasia research agenda - a consensus statement from the collaboration of aphasia trialists.

Coordination of international aphasia research would minimise duplication of effort, support synergistic international activities across languages and multidisciplinary perspectives, and promote high-quality conduct and reporting of aphasia research, thereby increasing the relevance, transparency, and implementation of findings. The Collaboration of Aphasia Trialists (CATs) sought to develop an aphasia research agenda to direct future research activities, based on priorities shared by people with aphasia, family members, and healthcare professionals. Our established international research network spanning 33 countries contributed to this activity. Research literature reporting the priorities of stakeholders was reviewed and synthesised (phase 1). Representatives from Working Groups on Aphasia Assessment & Outcomes, Prognosis & Predictors of Recovery, Effectiveness of Interventions, and Societal Impact & Reintegration participated in a two-day research agenda setting meeting. The CATs expert panel refined research objectives and identified constituent components of research and methodological developments required to address these research components. The objectives and research components were grouped into overarching themes (phase 2). The resultant list was then circulated to more than 180 CATs members for review, revision, and approval. Consensus on the final aphasia research agenda and road-map was reached by CATs executive committee (phase 3). The expert panel identified five overarching research themes: (i) evidence-based interventions for people with aphasia, (ii) effective interventions to support those communicating with people with aphasia, (iii) cross-linguistic assessment and core outcomes for aphasia research, (iv) predictors of language recovery, and (v) clinical implementation of research findings. Within these broad themes, 30 research objectives and 91 individual aphasia research components were identified and sequentially ordered. This agenda builds on research priorities identified by people with aphasia and their families, and includes priorities of healthcare professionals and researchers, and will support the rehabilitation and recovery of people with aphasia. Our internationally relevant research agenda promotes rigour in methodology, considers international applicability, synergistic activities, and sharing of resources and expertise

Cross-linguistic adaptations of The Comprehensive Aphasia Test: Challenges and solutions

Comparative research on aphasia and aphasia rehabilitation is challenged by the lack of comparable assessment tools across different languages. In English, a large array of tools is available, while in most other languages, the selection is more limited. Importantly, assessment tools are often simple translations and do not take into consideration specific linguistic and psycholinguistic parameters of the target languages. As a first step in meeting the needs for comparable assessment tools, the Comprehensive Aphasia Test is currently being adapted into a number of languages spoken in Europe. In this article, some key challenges encountered in the adaptation process and the solutions to ensure that the resulting assessment tools are linguistically and culturally equivalent, are proposed. Specifically, we focus on challenges and solutions related to the use of imageability, frequency, word length, spelling-to-sound regularity and sentence length and complexity as underlying properties in the selection of the testing material

Cross-linguistic patterns in the acquisition of quantifiers.

Learners of most languages are faced with the task of acquiring words to talk about number and quantity. Much is known about the order of acquisition of number words as well as the cognitive and perceptual systems and cultural practices that shape it. Substantially less is known about the acquisition of quantifiers. Here, we consider the extent to which systems and practices that support number word acquisition can be applied to quantifier acquisition and conclude that the two domains are largely distinct in this respect. Consequently, we hypothesize that the acquisition of quantifiers is constrained by a set of factors related to each quantifier's specific meaning. We investigate competence with the expressions for "all," "none," "some," "some…not," and "most" in 31 languages, representing 11 language types, by testing 768 5-y-old children and 536 adults. We found a cross-linguistically similar order of acquisition of quantifiers, explicable in terms of four factors relating to their meaning and use. In addition, exploratory analyses reveal that language- and learner-specific factors, such as negative concord and gender, are significant predictors of variation.This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from the National Academy of Sciences via http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.160134111

Imageability ratings across languages

Imageability is a psycholinguistic variable that indicates how well a word gives rise to a mental image or sensory experience. Imageability ratings are used extensively in psycholinguistic, neuropsychological, and aphasiological studies. However, little formal knowledge exists about whether and how these ratings are associated between and within languages. Fifteen imageability databases were cross-correlated using nonparametric statistics. Some of these corresponded to unpublished data collected within a European research network-the Collaboration of Aphasia Trialists (COST IS1208). All but four of the correlations were significant. The average strength of the correlations (rho = .68) and the variance explained (R (2) = 46%) were moderate. This implies that factors other than imageability may explain 54% of the results. Imageability ratings often correlate across languages. Different possibly interacting factors may explain the moderate strength and variance explained in the correlations: (1) linguistic and cultural factors; (2) intrinsic differences between the databases; (3) range effects; (4) small numbers of words in each database, equivalent words, and participants; and (5) mean age of the participants. The results suggest that imageability ratings may be used cross-linguistically. However, further understanding of the factors explaining the variance in the correlations will be needed before research and practical recommendations can be made