Soviet Psychology

ISSN: 0038-5751 (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/mrpo19

The Connotative Meaning of Words in Aphasia

T. V. Akhutina & E. V. Malakhovskaya

To cite this article: T. V. Akhutina & E. V. Malakhovskaya (1986) The Connotative Meaning of
Words in Aphasia, Soviet Psychology, 24:3, 26-42

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.2753/RPO1061-0405240326

Published online: 19 Dec 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=mrpo19

Download by: [University of Arizona] Date: 30 March 2016, At: 11:36

 AND E. V. MALAKHOVSKAYA
T. V. AKHUTINA

The Connotative Meaning

of Words in Aphasia

Study of the mechanisms of speech, of speaking and perception,

entails analysis of how the speaker and the listener operate with
the meaning of a word.
In the meaning of a living word, i.e., a word used by a
Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 11:36 30 March 2016

particular speaker in a particular situation, we may distinguish

between the linguistic or lexical meaning of a word and its sense.
The lexical meaning of a word has two components: the object
reference (denotative or referent) and meaning in the strict sense
(connotative).To simplify this somewhat, we can say that the first
reflects the context of the word, its reality, while the second is the
product of the systemic nature of linguistic meanings-it is the
meaning of a word as determined by its place in a system of
linguistic meanings.
As L. S. Vygotsky showed, these two components of a words
meaning are not formed at the same time: the one emerges from
visual-practical generalizations under the influence of the social
practice of communication, whereas the other is formed on the
basis of the development of a system of concepts and of a conno-
tative structure (Vygotsky, 1982. Pp. 182-84, 313). Accepting
this difference in psychological mechanisms, we may assume that
aphasia will affect these two components of a words meaning
differently.
Russian text 0 1985 by Moscow University.
Vestn. Mosk. Univ., Ser. 14, Psikhologiya, 1985, No. 1 , pp. 29-38.

26
 THE MEANING OF WORDS IN APHASIA 27

Considerable data on changes in word meaning have been

accumulated in studies of aphasics. This material has been col-
lected both in study of the nominative function of speech (nam-
ing) and in the context of study of the thought of aphasics in which
the patients attention has been focused on the generalizing con-
notative function of words.
A. R. Luria described several kinds of changes in the mean-
ing of words in aphasia. In patients with motor forms of
aphasia, a simplification of the structure of generalizations
Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 11:36 30 March 2016

represented by the word takes place; there are a shift from

categorical generalizations to situational generalizations
and a narrowing of the meaning of words. In patients with sen-
sory or semantic aphasia,2 changes in word meanings are crude:
in the first case, the immediate meaning of a word (or ob-
ject reference) is much more deeply affected than is its gen-
eralizing function; in the second, i.e., in semantic apha-
sia, the direct object reference of a word remains intact,
but the entire system of relations and connections behind the
word is found to be deeply disordered, resulting in a dis-
turbance of the forms of generalization that also make up the
true meaning of a word (Luria, 1947. Pp. 154, 226; 1969.
P. 118).
Lurias conclusions were confirmed by a number of special
experimental studies. For example, E. S . Bein, L. S . Tsvetkova,
N. G . Kalita, and M. G . Khrakovskaya studied patients with
sensory forms of aphasia and came to the same conclusion: in
these patients it was primarily the nominative function of words
(object reference) that was disturbed, their generalizing connota-
tive function being only secondarily affected (as a consequence of
the primary speech defect).
A study of word meaning in patients with semantic aphasia,
carried out by Khrakovskaya in the context of a study of thought,
confirmed Lurias finding that the categorical network of
these patients was grossly disordered. However, Khrakovskaya
gave a somewhat different interpretation of the defects she dis-
covered, asserting that they constituted a disorder in the interac-
 28 T K AKHUTINA & E. ! L MALAKOVSKAU

tion between the verbal and the imagic components of thought

(Khrakovskaya, 1978).
But the question of the mechanisms of disorders in both mean-
ing in the strict sense and in the object reference of a word still
remains essentially open.
L. S. Tsvetkova and N. G. Kalita studied the mechanisms of
disorder in the nominative function of words in patients with
acoustic-mnemonic aphasia and stressed its connection with de-
fects in visual representations (Tsvetkova, 1972; Kalita, 1974,
Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 11:36 30 March 2016

1979). These investigators, however, did not take up the question

of whether a disorder in the nominative function was always
associated with defects in visual representations, or how the latter
were correlated with other defects described in acoustic-mne-
monk aphasia, e.g., a decrease in auditory-verbal memory and a
narrowing of the span of auditory perception.
E. P. Kok (1957, 1967) also explored the question of the rela-
tionship between defects in visual representations and disorders
in naming. She studied various types of difficulties in identifying
visual images and found that object agnosia (difficulties in identi-
fying objects and pictures of them) was accompaniedby defects in
naming. Kok concluded that speech defects were secondary to
object agnosia, since in training aimed at overcoming object
agnosia, speech defects also diminished. Nevertheless, this hy-
pothesis requires further substantiation, since it is impossible to
imagine a kind of training that corrects images of objects without
the participation of speech.
But Koks studies cast doubt on Khrakovskayas view of the
mechanism of the disorder in word meaning in patients with
semantic aphasia. As already pointed out, Khrakovskaya thought
that this mechanism involved a disorder in the interaction be-
tween the verbal and the imagic components of thought; but
according to the findings of E. P. Kok and other investiga-
tors, object agnosia is not characteristic of patients with se-
mantic aphasia. Her data agreed with E. D. Markovas conclu-
sion (1961) that naming can be disordered without gnostic
defects, in particular, independently of the disintegration of
 THE MEANING OF WORDS IN APHASIA 29

the imagic components of thought.

Thus, in the Soviet literature there is a view maintaining that:
(1) disorder in word meaning in the strict sense is observed in
motor, sensory, and semantic forms of aphasia, although it is
directly related to the primary defect only in patients with
semantic aphasia, and in these cases is very prominent and stable;
and (2) disorder in the object reference of a word is observed
in patients with sensory forms of aphasia, and in at least some
of these patients it is related to disorders in visual repre-
Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 11:36 30 March 2016

sentation.
This view is not generally accepted, however. There are dis-
agreements in the literature about the clinical picture of disorders
in meaning and, in particular, about their mechanisms. This is
due especially to the lack of comparative studies of the extent to
which these two components of meaning are intact in the different
forms of aphasia.
Contemporary foreign investigators of aphasia also distinguish
between the reference of a word and its sense. The possible
dissociation of these two components of meaning in cerebral
pathology is a problem dealt with in a number of studies. Most
attention, however, is devoted to two other questions. First, are
defects in operating with word meanings related to disorders in
semantic representation of words or with difficulties in extracting
it? Second, what are the specific features of disorders in semantic
representat ion?
It is significant that in analyzing these questions, foreign ex-
perts on aphasia divide patients into two types: patients with even
or uneven speech (with more posterior or more anterior localiza-
tion of the lesion, respectively). Their studies have shown that
word meaning is more deeply disturbed in patients with lesions of
the posterior sections of the brain than in those with lesions of the
anterior sections. Word associations are more grossly disturbed
in them, i.e., the structure of the semantic field is impaired
(Howes, 1967; Lhermitte, 1971; Rinert & Whitaker, 1973;
Goodglass & Baker, 1976), and neither the categorical nor the
referential components of meaning remain i n t a ~ ti.e.,
, ~ both cate-
 30 L !l AKHUTINA & E. V MALAKOVSKAH

gorical meaning and object reference are disturbed. The percep-

tual components of semantic representation are even more seri-
ously affected (Whitehouse et al., 1978).
In contrast to patients with posterior lesions, patients with
anterior lesions characteristically display intact object reference
and unimpaired perceptual components of semantic representa-
tion, but categorical meaning is disordered (this was especially
prominent in an experiment by E. Zurif in which patients with
anterior aphasia classified words on the basis of the referen-
Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 11:36 30 March 2016

tial, not the categorical, components of meaning [Zurif & Cara-

mazza, 19761).
Thus, disorders in word meaning in patients with lesions of the
anterior sections of the brain have been described in essentially
the same way by Soviet and foreign authors. Soviet experts on
aphasia distinguish at least two syndromes in meaning disorders
in patients with lesions of the posterior sections, i.e., sensory
and semantic aphasia, whereas Western authors lump these two
forms of aphasia together.
As for the mechanisms of disorders in word meaning in apha-
sia, the views of both Soviet and Western experts on aphasia
remain open to debate.
The main purpose of our present study is to describe the differ-
ent types of disorders in operating with word meaning and to
analyze their mechanisms. This entails, in particular, establishing
the possibility of relatively isolated (primary) disorders in object
reference and in categorical meaning and an analysis of the corre-
sponding mechanisms. Clarification of these questions will pre-
pare the way for tackling a second one, namely, determination of
the composition of operations necessary for operating normally
with word meaning.
We developed a procedure that included tests enabling us to
determine whether categorical word meaning and the object
reference of words were intact. We shall concentrate here on
the results of three tests for determining to what extent cate-
gorical meaning was intact in patients with different forms of
aphasia.
 THE MEANING OF WORDS IN APHASIA 31

Procedure

1. Object classification.This test is a modification of the well-

known free object classification, in which the subject must
sort 70 cards containing pictures of people, animals, plants, and
objects (Rubinshtein, 1970. Pp. 84-105). The test procedure is
as follows. In the first stage, the subject is asked to distribute the
cards on the basis of the principle what matches what. In
contrast to the traditional procedure, the subject has to match all
Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 11:36 30 March 2016

the cards in this stage. In the second stage we asked the subject to
check the groups formed and pointed out that a group had to
contain only objects of the same kind, i.e., those that could be
named by the same word. In the third stage, the subject was given
the following problem: to combine the groups in such a way that
one had as few groups as possible (three or four), but each could
be given a common name.
2 . Verbal classicution. In the first stage the subject was given
35 cards with words written on them and asked to match them.
For the control group, cards were laid out in seven groups with
five words on each card. In the second stage, after all the cards
were laid out in groups, the subject was given another nine cards:
seven with group names (trees, bushes, grasses, in-
sects, birds, fish, and mammals) and two with gener-
alizing names for several groups (plants, animals). The
instructions were to place these cards in the groups formed; in
addition, it was pointed out that the new cards also contained
some that could belong to several groups.
Inclusion in the experimental study of two classification tests
was dictated, first, by the need to compare the patients ability
to operate with word meanings with and without a visual sup-
port, respectively. In some patients (especially those with tem-
poral lesions) the phenomenon of alienation of the sense of a
word was possible; this impedes producing a words object
reference. Presentation of a visual support made it much easier
for such patients to produce and retain word meanings. Second,
the use of two classifications enabled us to vary the complexity
 32 T !L AKHUTINA & E. P! M A A K O V S K A H

of the categorical generalizations. Whereas in the object classi-

fication the material presented was relatively easy to catego-
rize, for verbal classification we presented more homogeneous
material that was much more difficult to classify by category.
The classification of the verbal material was also made more
difficult by the fact that the group contained, in addition to
central (prototypical, according to Roschs [ 19751 defini-
tion) representatives of the particular class, some peripheral
(atypical)representatives; for example, the group mammals
contained the atypical walrus and whale in addition to
Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 11:36 30 March 2016

wolf and lion.

Thus, the object classification test was easier than the sec-
ond in terms of both producing the object reference of a word
and categorizing it, i.e., operating with meaning in the strict
sense. In scope the material was more difficult than the verbal
test.
3. Finding words with a given meaning. In this test the patient
had to perform two tasks: first, think of independently, and then
identify (select from a list), a word. The test procedure was as
follows. A sample card containing two words related in a specific
way (e.g., apple and fruit) was placed before the subject. A
card with a test word, e.g., clothes was placed before him.
The subject had independently to choose a word that matched this
word in such a way that the relation between them would be the
same as that given in the sample. Then the subject was given a
second problem: to choose a possible alternative to the sought
word from a list of five words (in the example this was gar-
ments, store, cupboard, pretty, collar). This pro-
cedure was repeated with the next test word. The subjects re-
ceived 50 test words (nouns) in all: 10 words for pinpointing
relations (genus-species, species-genus) and 15 words indicating
the relation whole-part and part-whole.

Subjects
A total of 10 persons without linguistic disorders (control group)
and 37 patients with aphasia participated in the study. The pa-
tients were divided into the following groups according to differ-
 THE MEANING OF WORDS IN APHASIA 33

ent types of aphasia: (1) complex motor (predominantlyefferent)

aphasia- 11 patients; (2) acoustic-mnemonic aphasia- 10 pa-
tients; (3) semantic aphasia-8 patients; (4)sensorimotor apha-
sia-8 patients. The main disorder was complicated by a marked
component of semantic aphasia in four patients of the second and
fourth groups; by elements of acoustic-mnemonicaphasia in four
patients of the third group; and by residual symptoms of afferent
motor aphasia in two other patients of this group.
The degree of speech disorder was mild in patients of the third
Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 11:36 30 March 2016

group, and in the patients of the other groups it varied from mild
to gross (for more detailed data, see the tables). The severity of
the aphasia was assessed using a procedure described by Tsvet-
kova and co-workers (1981).
The etiology of the condition was a disorder of cerebral circu-
lation in 25 patients, injury in 7, removal of a tumor in 3, removal
of an abscess in 1, and temporal epilepsy in 1.

Treatment of results

We analyzed the results of the first two tests with a modifica-

tion of a procedure for processing the results of classification
tests used by Khrakovskaya (1978). Test performance was repre-
sented by coefficient K, defined as the quotient from dividing the
overall score for combining the groups by the total number of
groups.
The overall score consisted of the scores of the different types
of groups; for a group formed on the basis of a single categorical
attribute, the subject was given ten points; ten points were also
given for placing the cards and naming the group appropriately
(in the second stage of verbal classification); five points were
given for putting together an incomplete group, and zero points,
for a group put together on the basis of a concrete situational
connection; for solitary cards and solitary groups, i.e., groups
that did not fit into the general structure of the classification, and
for compiling general groups, zero points were given. If the
subject assembled a group correctly or gave the right name after a
 34 I: K AKHUTINA & E. K MAL.AKOVSUEi

hint from the experimenter, he received five points instead of ten.

In the object classification, subjects in the control group as-
sembled ten groups on the basis of a categorical attribute in the
first stage; in the second stage (verification stage), they did not
reorganize the group; and in the third stage, they assembled three
or, less frequently, four general groups (objects, plants,
animals or objects, plants, animals, people). The
individual score for these subjects was most often derived as
follows:
Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 11:36 30 March 2016

(The scores for each stage of classification are given in the

parentheses.)
On the whole, the average score for object classification (KO)
for the control group was 9.9.
In doing the verbal classification, the subjects in the control
group assembled seven groups on the basis of a categorical attri-
bute in the first stage, gave seven appropriate names to these
groups in the second stage, and then attached two names, ani-
mals and plants, to general groups. Thus, each subject in the
control group obtained the following score:

I(=
.(7s 10) -+ (7 x I0 4-2 x 10) -
- 10.
7+7+2

Thus, the average score for verbal classification (KJ for the
control group was 10.
The results of the third test, finding words with a given mean-
ing, were scored by giving 0.1 points for each correct answer.
Since the subjects did 2 problems with each of the 50 test words,
i.e., finding a word independently and choosing a word from the
list, the maximum score was 10 points. The control group did this
test without mistakes, and their average score was therefore ten
points.
 Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 11:36 30 March 2016

Table 1

Average Scores for Object (KO) and Verbal (KV)Classification for a Control Group and for Patients with Different
Forms of Speech Disorder of Varying Severity

Type of Acoustic-
aphasia Motor mnemonic Semantic Sensorimotor
Control
Severity Mild Moderate Severe Mild Moderate Severe Mild Mild Moderate Severe group

Number of
subjects 3 3 4 3 5 2 8 3 4 1 10

KO 7.4 6.3 3.4 7.1 5.2 3.0 3.3 6.2 4.8 3.1 9.9
K 7.8 6.5 4.6 6.0 4.2 1.9 2.85 5.0 3.8 1.8 10
 36 T K AKHUTINA & E. V MALAKOVSKAB

Results

Analysis of the results of object and verbal classification showed

that all the patients had trouble classifying similar items (Table
1). Qpical mistakes in constructing the primary groups (first
stage of classification) were forming incomplete groups (rut was
not classified as an animal, but set aside in a special group) or
making a classification based on an incidental similarity instead
of by category (whale and walrus or the water birds
Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 11:36 30 March 2016

goose, duck, and swan were classified with fish). In

extreme cases the patients had a large number of single cards left
over that they had not put together. The culminating stage of
classification, i.e. , building a hierarchy of the primary groups,
was the most difficult task for all the patients. The types of
mistakes encountered were incomplete classification (some
groups were not put in the general hierarchy) and making a
concrete-situational classification based on incidental attributes.
For example, patient Ts., with mild, complex, motor aphasia, did
the second stage of object classification correctly, but classified
the groups people, clothing, furniture, and dishes in
one category in the third stage, reasoning that theyre all for
people in their houses.
A comparison of the results of the different groups revealed
that in patients with motor forms of aphasia (first group) and in
those with acoustic-mnemonicaphasia (second group),the scores
were lower the more severe the aphasia. Patients in the second
group generally received lower scores than those in the first
group. Patients of the first group had greater difficulties with
object classification, and patients of the second group, with ver-
bal classification. It may be hypothesized that for patients of the
first group, object classification was more difficult since, first, it
was greater in extent (it included 70 primary cards) and, second,
the attractive pictures of concrete objects in it elicited stronger
concrete associations (T. I. Tepenitsyna, in 1961,pointed out this
property of object classification). The other characteristics of
verbal classification, e.g., the complexity of categorization
owing to the similarity of categories in the absence of visual cues,
 THE MEANING OF WORDS IN APHASIA 37

Table 2

Average Scores for Finding Words with a Given Meaning

Acoustic-
Motor mnemonic
aphasia aphasia
Group of Control (mild (mild Semantic
subjects group subgroup) subgroup) aphasia

Number of subjects 10 3 3 5
Score 10 9.8 8.7 7.4
Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 11:36 30 March 2016

were less important for patients with motor aphasia. On the other
hand, these characteristics of verbal classification were most
significant for patients with acoustic-mnemonic .aphasia, for
whom word meaning is easily alienated: patients of the second
group performed much more poorly in verbal classification than
in object classification.
Patients with semantic aphasia (third group) received poorer
scores than the first two groups, with the same degree of aphasia,
i.e., mild. Like the patients of the second group, they also had
more difficulty doing verbal classification. Since signs of alien-
ation of word meaning are absent in patients with semantic
aphasia, their poorer performance in verbal classification can be
explained only by the greater difficulty of categorization in this
test. It may thus be concluded that categorization itself, i.e.,
operating with meaning in the strict sense, is more difficult for
patients with semantic aphasia.
The results of problems involving finding words with a given
meaning are summarized in Table 2. This table shows the scores
of patients with only mild aphasia since the marked nominative
difficulties experienced by patients with grosser disorders make
this task somewhat unsuitable for our purposes. In addition,
Table 2 contains scores only of patients with secondary and higher
education. As the results indicate, the level of education had a
more significant influence on performance in this test than in
preceding ones (thus, for patient S.,with primary education, the
scores fell from 0.8 in the first and second tests to 0.6 in the third
 38 I: K AKHVTINA & E. k! MALAKOVSKAR

test compared with the average score for other subjects of his
subgroup).
The analysis showed that, as in the first two tests, the worst
results among patients with mild aphasia were obtained by those
with semantic aphasia. Performance on the second test was very
interesting in this respect: patients with motor forms of aphasia
made no mistakes choosing words from a list, patients with
acoustic-mnemonic aphasia made only a few mistakes, but pa-
tients with semantic aphasia erred on up to 50% of the items.
Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 11:36 30 March 2016

Even after they had correctly produced the word in the first test,
these patients would make a mistake in choosing a word from the
list. For example, they would say that several or all of the words
in the list were suitable. In contrast, patients in the other
groups usually corrected a [prior] incorrect independent word
choice in the word choice test.

Discussion of results

The results for the different groups showed that patients with
semantic aphasia, compared with patients with other forms of
aphasia of equal severity, had the most difficulties operating with
meaning in the strict sense. We assume that these difficulties are
primary in patients with semantic aphasia, i.e., that they derive
directly from defects in simultaneous synthesis, which are char-
acteristic of patients with lesions in the zone where the parietal,
temporal, and occipital sections of the left hemisphere overlap. If
we visualize a categorical meaning matrix as a hierarchical
tree (or another diagram: relations of similarity, for example, are
more simply described by a nonhierarchical diagram) and regard
the search for word meanings as a simultaneous addition of
semes4of different levels, we may presume that a defect in simul-
taneous synthesis must inevitably hinder the normal functioning
of such a matrix. Although we are quite aware of the meta-
phorical quality of expressions such as meaning matrix and
diagram when applied to psychological mechanisms, we nev-
ertheless consider this to be the most workable explanation.
For example, it fits in with both clinical observations of the
 THE MEANING OF WORDS IN APHASIA 39

possibility of dysfunction in operating with words and word

meanings in the absence of modal-specific speech defects and
with contemporary theoretical notions-particularly the psycho-
linguistic definition of meaning as a set of semantic attributes and
the hypothesis developed in psychophysiology that the function-
ing of the left hemisphere is predominantly and distinctively
analytic-combinatory.
The difficulties the subjects of the other two groups had in
operating with meaning in the strict sense were evidently of a
Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 11:36 30 March 2016

secondary nature. They were less marked in patients with com-

plex motor (mainly efferent) aphasia and more marked in patients
with acoustic-mnemonic aphasia.
The mechanism of these difficulties is rooted both in general
brain factors, such as fatigability, difficulty in concentrating at-
tention, etc., and in local factors, such as pathological inertness
and impairment of auditory-speech memory, which is primary in
patients with acoustic-mnemonic aphasia and secondary in pa-
tients with motor forms of aphasia. These factors doubtless influ-
ence the executive, peripheral aspect of operating with mean-
ing in the strict sense; but the question remains whether they also
influence the central level, i.e., the synthesis of meanings.
Observations of the test performance of patients with motor
aphasia revealed that, although they quite frequently made use of
visual-situational forms of generalization, these patients were
also able to arrive at a correct solution through independent
reasoning or when prompted by the experimenters leading ques-
tions. They gave the impression that they could solve the prob-
lems in two ways: an easier, simplified way through visual-practi-
cal generalization, and a more complicated way requiring special
efforts on their part, i.e., categorical generalization. Why was
the first way preferred? Possibly because of its greater simplicity
and the practical importance of visual-practical generalizations
(on the dominance of functional-situational generalizations in
human practical activity, see works by R. M. Frumkina et al., in
particular: Zvonkin & Frumkina, 1980; Ryumna, 1982). The
preference for the first way may also be due to the de-automatiz-
ing of verbal systems and to various compensatory reorganiza-
 40 T I! AKHUTINA & E. I! MALAKOVSKAH

tions. Further detailed studies of the mechanisms of motor

aphasia are necessary to answer this question more pre-
cisely.
As for patients with acoustic-mnemonic aphasia, the mecha-
nism of secondary disorder in relation to the function of operating
with meaning in the strict sense was different. These patients
attempt to compensate for disorders in the objective reference of
a word, i.e., the association between object and word, by
referring to a meaning matrix. Often patients retained the
Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 11:36 30 March 2016

categorical meaning of a word without registering its sound or its

specific objective meaning (for example, a patient who heard the
word elk asked: What is an elk? Maybe it belongs with the
horses? When asked to repeat the word, the patient would just
say something about a horse). However, categorical meaning
was unstable and inconsistent in these patients. This perhaps also
explains a typical feature of classification, i.e., the variability in
its breakdown: the patients proposed a multitude of different
group classifications, regarding none of them as definitive. In
addition, in all probability these patients attempted to compen-
sate for their defect by an idea of integral life situations, i.e.,
producing associations such as patch-rag [Zip-Zustochka]
table-cup-glass-cupboard-broom.
Thus, the results of our study confirm the view that, when the
lesion is located posteriorly, there are two different types of
disorder in meaning: in semantic aphasia it is meaning in the
strict sense that is primarily affected, whereas in acoustic-mne-
monic aphasia, object reference is primarily impaired, and mean-
ing in the strict sense is secondarily affected.
Attempting to interpret these findings psycholinguistically, we
must assume that the various alterations in meaning are possible
because there are two different forms of mediation of the two
components of meaning we studied. This hypothesis fits in with
Paivios (1971) thesis that there are two forms of coding word
meaning, imagic and verbal. However, more detailed examina-
tion of disorders in the object reference of words is necessary for
more definite confirmation of this hypothesis.
 THE MEANING OF WORDS IN APHASIA 41

Notes
1 . Motor forms of aphasia (efferent and afferent) occur when the premotor
and postcentral zones of the left hemisphere are injured; their mechanism
involves disorder in the kinetic or kinesthetic bases of speech acts (Luria, 1969.
Pp. 178-85, 196-203).
2. Sensory forms of aphasia (acoustic-gnostic and acoustic-mnemonic) oc-
cur when the temporal sections of the left hemisphere are damaged; they
involve defects in phonemic hearing and in auditory-speech memory (Luria,
1969. Pp. 101-118). Semantic aphasia is the consequence of a lesion of that
area of the brain where the parietal, occipital, and temporal sections of the left
(dominant) hemisphere overlap. According to Luria (1969. P. 152-57), diffi-
Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 11:36 30 March 2016

culties in operating with words and disorders in understanding the logico-

grammatical constructions of speech observed in this form of aphasia involve
impairment of simultaneous (quasi-spatial) syntheses.
3. Categorical attributes carry leading information about an object (for
example, wolf-animal) and form a categorical matrix. Identifying attributes
carry concrete-selective and affective information about a referent (Miller,
1967; Fillenbaum & Rappoport, 1971). This distinction to some extent coin-
cides with that between categorical meaning (sense) and object reference.
4. Just as a phoneme may be viewed as a bundle of phonemic attributes,
word meaning may be viewed as a set of semantic attributes or semes.

References
1 . Bein, E. S. [Aphasia and ways to overcome i t ] . Leningrad: Medi-
tsina Publishers, 1964. 235 pp.
2 . Bein, E. S., & Ovcharova, P. A. [Clinical aspects and treatment of
aphasia]. Sofia: Meditsina i fizkultura, 1970. 210 pp.
3. Vygotsky, L. S. [Thinking and speech]. Moscow: Sotsekgiz, 1934.
4. Vygotsky, L. S . [Complete works]. Moscow, 1982. Vol. 2, pp. 5-361.
5. Zvonkin, A. K., & Frumkina, R. M. [Free classification: Models of
behavior]. Nauchno-tekhnicheskaya informatsiia, Series 2, 1980, No. 6, pp.
1-6.
6. Kalita, N. G . [The nature of disorders in naming in acoustic-mne-
monk aphasia]. Psikhologicheskie issledowniia, 1974, No. 6, pp. 88-101.
7. Kalita, N. G . [Disorders in thought in patients with acoustic-mne-
monic aphasia]. In [Problems of aphasia and remedial learning]. Moscow:
Moscow University, 1979. Pp. 79-88.
8. Kok, E. P. [Studies of generalization and abstraction in patients with
aphasia]. Candidates dissertation. Moscow, 1957.
9. Kok, E. P. [Visual agnosia]. Moscow: Meditsina Publishers,
1967. 224 pp.
10. Luria, A. R. [Traumatic aphasia]. Akad. Med. Nauk. Publishers,
1947. 367 pp.
1 1 . Luria, A. R. [Higher cortical functions in man]. Moscow: Moscow
 42 T c! AKHUTINA & E. c! MALAKOVSKAU

University, 1969. 502 pp.

12. Markova, E. D. [Clinical and pathophysiological characteristics of am-
nestic aphasia]. In [Clinical and pathophysiological questions in aphasia].
Moscow: Medgiz, 1961. Pp. 58-96.
13. Rubinshtein, S. Ya. [Experimental methods in psychopathology].Mos-
cow: Meditsina Publishers, 1970. 215 pp.
14. Ryumina, N. A. [Free classification as a method of studying the seman-
tics of concrete words]. In [Experimental studies in psycholinguistics].
MOSCOW, 1982. Pp. 30-40.
15. Tepenitsyna, T. I. [Comparative characteristics of object and verbal
classifications as methods for studying thought in patients with vascular and
other mental disorders]. In [Vasculardiseases of the brain].Moscow: Medgiz,
Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 11:36 30 March 2016

1961.
16. Khrakovskaya, M.G. [Characteristics of thought in patients with apha-
sia]. Candidates dissertation. Leningrad, 1978.
17. Tsvetkova, L. S. [Remedial learning in local brain lesions]. Moscow:
Pedagogika Publishers, 1972. 270 pp.
18. Tsvetkova, L. S. [Object naming and its disorders]. Vop. Psikhol.,
1972, NO. 4, pp. 107-117.
19. Tsvetkova, L. S., & Kalita, N. G. [Disorders and remedy in naming in
acoustic-mnemonic aphasia]. Defektologiya, 1976, No. 2, pp. 3-10.
20. Tsvetkova, L. S., Akhutina, T. V., & Pylaeva, N. M. [Procedurefor
evaluating speech in aphasia]. Moscow: Moscow University, 1981. 66 pp. +
34 pp. supplement.
21. Fillenbaum, S., & Rappoport, A. Structures in the subjective lexicon.
NY: Academic Press, 1971. 266 pp.
22. Goodglass, H., & Baker, E. Semantic field, naming, and auditory
comprehension in aphasia. Brain and Language, 1976, 3, 359-74.
23. Howes, D. Some experimental investigations of language in aphasia. In
K. Salzinger & S. Salzinger (Eds.), Research in verbal behavior and some
neurophysiological implications. NY: Academic Press, 1967. Pp. 181-96.
24. Lhermitte, F., Derouesne, J., & Lecours, A. Contribution a lbtude des
troubles semantiques dans laphasie. Rev Neurologique, 1971, 125, 81-101.
25. Miller, G. A. Psycholinguistic approaches to the study of communica-
tion. In D. L. Arm (Ed.), Journeys in science: Small steps-great strides.
Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1967.
26. Paivio, A. Imagery and verbal processes. NY: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, 1971. 596 pp.
27. Rinnert, C., & Whitaker, H. Semantic confusions by aphasic patients.
Cortex, 1973, 9, 56-81.
28. Rosch, E. Cognitive representations of semantic categories. J. Exper.
Psychol.: General, 1975, 104, 192-233.
29. Whitehouse, P., Caramazza, A., & Zurif, E. Naming in aphasia. Inter-
acting effects of form and function. Brain and Language, 1978, 6, 63-74.
30. Zurif, E., & Caramazza, A. Psycholinguistic structures in aphasia. In
H. Whitaker & H. A. Whitaker (Eds.), Studies in neurolinguisrics.NY: Aca-
demic Press, 1976. Vol. 1 , pp. 261-92.