Science of Aphasia 5 Cross Linguistic Aspects of Aphasia ...

(4 ) . . . X . . . Z . . . Y . . .
[ α,β,γ,δ, ε ] [α,β,γ,δ] [ α,β,γ,δ,ε]
In (4) a particular set of morphosyntactic features is associated with every node. Given this
configuration, RM allows the formation of a relation Σ between X and Y: the presence of the element
ε suffices for RM to see the difference between X and Z and therefore to authorize the movement of Y
over Z.
3. Main claim
If for any reason some of the features associated with the syntactic nodes are deleted we will expect a
reduction of the possibility to establish relationships over intervening elements, because RM will
block it, as there is no feature mismatch between X and Z.
Our claim is that, a cause of their limited processing capacity, aphasics can’t access the representation
of the features needed for the computation of structures involving dependencies over possible
interveners.
Theory applied
The application is illustrated by the well-known asymmetry in aphasic’s comprehension of subject vs.
object clefts.
Normal Representation
[ N;θ 2;ϕ m,s,acc;Σ ][N;θ 1 ;ϕ f,s,nom][N;θ 1;ϕ f,s,nom][N;θ 2;ϕ m,s,acc;Σ]
6 [It is [the boy j [whoj [[the girl]i [i loved j ]]]]]
Spec
(5) . . . X . . . Z . . . Y . . .
[α,β,γ,δ,ε] [α,β,γ,δ] [α,β,γ,δ,ε]
XP
X
’
X
[ α,β,γ,δ,ε] °
Spec
WP
The formation of the relevant chains between the moved NPs and their traces is authorized by RM in
virtue of the presence of the features [ϕs,acc;Σ] distinct from the features [ϕs,nom]. It is specifically the
presence of the Σ feature (that we can call a “relative” feature), that defines the object as
member of a class distinct from the one to which the subject belongs. Being the Operator’s
class the former and Argumental the latter.
W
’
W° ZP
Z
Spec ’
Z°
[ α,β,γ,δ]
YP
Spec
Y
’
. . .
Y
[ α,β,γ,δ,ε] °